Completed:
- 100 long swings
- 30 minutes palming
- Eyebody/Open Focus work
Sometime in the last week I lost my -4.25d glasses! I’m actually glad I did because now I’ve been using my -3.75 and -3.25 d glasses instead and have found I see just as well with them (when I need to). I’m still spending most of my time without glasses, but for some computer work it’s better to use glasses so my posture is not so terrible. I think it may be a partial cause of my headaches as I start to crane forward at my neck. I only use glasses when necessary for work, and only rarely otherwise.
Sassisailor's Weblog 
Is permanent undercorrection bad for me? I’ve just been reading http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/myopiaindex.php
and it is talking about that in section 3.2.28.
Last time I went to the eye doctor, he wanted to prescribe -8.00 (similar to you originally). However, since my glasses broke in March of this year, I’ve constantly been wearing -4.5 (except for as long as I can go without them). But if this is true, then wouldn’t not wearing glasses at all be also bad? I figure that it is important of course to relax while wearing them.
I always feel slightly sick when I start reading these things.
Hope I’m not being too annoying by asking questions in your comments but somehow I feel more at home here than in a forum.
Thanks!
Helena
Dear Helena,
What ever you do, you will find you sit on a “knife edge”. That is the situation for anyone who wishes to avoid entry into myopia (a negative refractive STATE). It takes bold resolve to “fight” the “fears” you might have about prevention, using Dr. Bates method(s). The only way you have to “temper” these fears is to learn how bad that minus lens truly is for you. This his “known” in the profession, and they call the minus of any strength, “…poison glasses for children”. That is my judgment, and helps explain Dr. Bates insistence in running a successful PREVENTIVE effort in 1913. Here is some more references by experienced experts stating that the safety of the minus lens — HAS NEVER BEEN VERIFIED.
============
Subject: The Effects of “Corrective” Lenses: Insight and
Comment From (prevention-minded) Eye Doctors
No clinical or statistical studies have ever demonstrated the
long-term safety of a (minus) “corrective” lens.
In fact, a certain percentage of doctors believe that — as the
second-opinion — “corrective” lenses (also known as
“compensatory” negative lenses) usually create dependency and
make the eyes move more rapidly in a negative refractive direction.
These concerns have been voiced in the professional
literature by concerned doctors who support the concept
the “second opinion” to do work for the prevention of nearsightedness
with a plus lens.
Here are sample excerpts from the professional literature voicing
concerns about the safety of “corrective” lenses:
“The use of compensatory lenses to treat or neutralize the
symptoms does not correct the problem. The current education and
training of eye care practitioners discourages preventive and
remedial treatment.” R.L. Gottlieb, Journal of Optometry and
Visual Development, 13(1):3-27, 1982.
“The emphasis on compensatory lenses has posed a problem for
many years in our examinations. These lenses do not correct
anything and may not serve the patient in his best interests over
a period of time.” CJ. Forkiortis, OEP Curriculum, 53:1, 1980
“There are frequently ignored patterns of addiction to minus
lenses. The typical prescription tends to overpower and fatigue
the visual system and what is often a transitory condition becomes
a lifelong situation which is likely to deteriorate with time.” S.
Gallop, Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 5(5):115-120, 1994
“Single-vision minus lenses for full-time use produce
accommodative insufficiency associated with additional symptoms
until the patient gets used to the lens. This is usually
accompanied by a further increase in myopia and the cycle begins
anew.” M.H. Birnbaum, Review of Optometry, 110(21): 23-29, 1973.
“Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least
likely to prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they
increase the near-point stress that is associated with
progression.” B. May, OEP Publications, A- 112, 1984.
Best, Otis
Dear Friend,
Some MDs love the impression a strong minus makes on you — and are blind as to the long-term consequences to you. But, to be correctly informed — that no ALL professionals are blind to the danger of even STARTING with the minus — I would read this link:
http://www.myopia.org/brumerpaper.htm
A great deal of what he says is true, as a matter of basic science and research. So “avoiding” the minus is wise — but that must always be a matter of your educated choice — as it is with Sassy.
“Dear Helena, What ever you do, you will find you sit on a “knife edge”. That is the situation for anyone who wishes to avoid entry into myopia (a negative refractive STATE). It takes bold resolve to “fight” the “fears” you might have about prevention, using Dr. Bates method(s).”
Ummm…. Helena has -8.D! Hardly someone who can wish to “avoid entry into myopia.” Of hardly someone to fear prevention. Are you sure you aren’t some kind of random spambot, Otis? 🙂
“The only way you have to “temper” these fears is to learn how bad that minus lens truly is for you.””
That’s like saying, “the only way to temper your fear of the boogeyman is to realize that he really IS out there and out to get you.”
Dear Martin,
Subject: Making a choice for prevention — as Sassy has done.
Objection to the minus lens is the second-opinion.
If you love the minus, and believe it is “perfectly safe”, the
please, ignore my (and Bates) objection to it.
But then, I wonder why you read or post on Sassy’s site?
But this is Sassy’s site, and she has accomplished an incredible clearing of her Snellen. No one is asking anyone to follow in her foot steps. If you don’t like clearing, and finally prevention, then why post here?
If you think that objection to the minus, is not the second-opinion, then why read or post on Sassy’s site.
It is indeed up to the person to “sort through” these isssues and make her choice — as Sassy has done.
Second-opinion best,
Otis
Dear Helena,
Subject: Understanding objection to the “traditional” minus lens.
While a minus (quick-fix) works impressively in five minutes — there a many or object to the casual disregard for your long-term vision, and the fact that the minus enables the “situation” to get profoundly worse. As part of this education about your choice, you might enjoy reading about an engineer’s objection to the minus lens.
http://www.myopia.org/
But — no one is saying that Snellen clearing is easy or fast.
Further, no one is telling you what you should or should not do. That choice MUST be up to you — not up to Martin, not up to Sassy, and not up to me.
Enjoy our scientific reviews. Otis
“But then, I wonder why you read or post on Sassy’s site?”
Well, I can’t speak for Sassy, but will try to anyway. If I’m wrong, by all means Sassy, correct me.
I think no one here – me, you, Sassy, and all the other people – would disagree with the statement that myopia is better prevented than cured. But it’s too late for prevention for the people who come here.
“Subject: Making a choice for prevention — as Sassy has done.”
I don’t think she has done any such thing. She has chosen to CURE her myopia rather than prevent it. With your over-focus on prevention with people who have no use for prevention anymore, it’s as if you would be a speaker on the dangers of smoking, and making a case for never starting smoking, in a room full of people with (terminal or not) lung cancer.
“If you don’t like clearing, and finally prevention, then why post here?”
“…clearing, and finally prevention…”
Are we using different definitions perhaps? Do you consider “prevention” to mean a “complete cure”/”complete clearing”?
Subject: Flame wars.
When I say PREVENTION, I mean that the person is provided with information (that a professional SHOULD ALWAYS PROVIDE). The fact is that providing this scientific information takes time, and depends on the insights and motivation of the person concerned with true-prevention.
One issues does in fact “bother” me — and that is the matter or making “excessive” claims, or setting up “false hopes”. So, to avoid having this “expectation” set up in the person, I simply use the words “Bates-prevention” or “Prentice-prevention”, and hope the person understands (or can learn ) of these issues.
Thus prevention means STARTING the preventive process before your even start with an over-prescribed minus lens. When I say OBJECTION to the minus — is the second-opinion, that is exactly what I mean.
From quite a few scientific studies we know that the un-protected eye (as in school) will go down at a rate of -0.833 diopters per year. (At least 4 “controled” studies). This underscores the need for prevention before that first minus. It also means that any person who wishes to “work” their way out of it, but necessary “un-do” those years in school, when (accoding to Dr. Bates) the never should have even started in the first place.
So when I say “prevention”, I mean:
1. “Waking up” to the need for it, before that first minus.
2. Reading your Snellen, at that point (at say 20/50).
3. STARTING using Bates, when success is more probable.
4. AFTER you get to better-than 20/40, CONTINUE with the PREVENTIVE process.
5. This means that even after you “get out” you must continue with the preventive method — or, in our long-term “near” enviroments — you will just get “back in”.
6. But to avoid “conflict” — that is the concept of true-prevention, by Bates, or any other method.
Second-opinion best, Otis
Helena,
About your original question, my own vision improvement work has taught me to trust my feelings (I’m not sure I even used to know I had feelings). So when putting on glasses makes my temples hurt or my neck gets tight or I get dizzy, I know they’re not good for me, no matter what others say. When I take them off & feel free & expansive, like I’m let out of a cage, I know this is a good thing, no matter what others say. Finally, when my under-corrected glasses are too weak to see safely (like for driving) & I get anxious & nervous, this is NOT good. Ripping glasses off everyone won’t work. Some people with low prescriptions might be able to adjust, but those with stronger glasses usually have too much blur to be able to do anything but be paralyzed with fear.
For me, I’ve had to become very aware of how my body feels; am I straining, especially in my head or neck? I started wearing weaker glasses in 2001, when I wore -10 hard contacts with -1.75 cylinder for decades. I got -9 soft lenses (I’d never worn these before) & a pair of -8 glasses “to play with”. The doctor told me later he was wondering at himself about giving me the -8’s because my eyes were so strained. Well, I can now drive in the daytime with -2 or a bit stronger if the light is bad, & I don’t wear glasses at all except for driving. At night I usually drive with -5. But if I’d thrown away my glasses at the beginning I would have probably had a nervous breakdown, let alone not being able to work, drive, or lead my life.
One thing I’ve done wrong is try to force myself to move to weaker prescriptions before I was ready, & I think this is why my progress has been slow. You are the best guide of how you feel; push yourself a little, so it’s exciting, but not to the point that it’s overwhelming & you’re terrified. I know there are people who lowered their prescription much faster than I am, but as long as I continue to improve I’m happy. Don’t worry so much about what the experts say. Experts put you in glasses!
Nancy
My two cents on this flame war,
Otis posts on Robert Lichtmann’s forum often, similar to what he says here about prevention, even when the topic is usually about someone trying to improve their existing myopia. I used to get very annoyed at this, & now just realize he is passionate about preventing myopia & “that dreaded minus lens” as he keeps saying. I once posted something about my own improvement & he replied with the same kind of thing, & I got so annoyed I told him it was much too late for prevention for me, & what about some encouragement? He said that’s not what he does, & posted a link to Sassy’s blog (which is how I got here in the first place).
So for me, Otis, I do appreciate your contributions. What I’m looking for for myself now is more about how to REVERSE the need for glasses, which I often don’t get from you. Everybody contributes what they know best.
Let’s try to keep this a positive & friendly exchange here. We are all trying to improve & learn which is why we are here to begin with.
Nancy
Hi Helena,
I’m so happy that you feel comfortable asking questions on this blog. Please feel free to ask anything and know that I will do my best to answer your questions to the best of my abilities, given MY experience. I can only speak from what I’ve done myself, but hopefully this will shed some perspective on this controversial issue 🙂
First, I’m happy to see you’re reading a lot of information and trying to know for yourself what is best for your eyes. I think this is the critical first step. Because there are so many uncertanties about glasses, I think it’s best to eduate ourselves and take control over our health. There are some like-minded eye doctors however, and it may give you confidence to find a behavioral optometrist or someone that can reassure you that using reduced lenses is not harmful. I read through the Section you mentioned about permanent undercorrection and will comment below.
This was the only absolute comment they made in the section without having any doubts or contradictory evidence. So let’s start with this:
**** “Permanent overcorrection is increasing myopia without any doubt (see section 3.3 as well).”****
I think this is the MOST important first lesson. Overcorrection leads to increased myopia. So first of all, what does this mean? well, this means that if the eye doctor had given you a pair of -8 diopter glasses they “may” have been an OK prescription for driving at night (for example). HOWEVER, if you are going for a walk outside at noon, this prescription will be an overcorrection –> thus leading to increased myopia. For instance, in the past I would get a prescription from the doctor, and then wear those glasses ALL DAY, without a break thus exposing my eyes to overcorrection and resulting in my increased myopia (hence why I started at -8 D as well!).
Where I’m going with this, is that, like Otis I KNOW (from my own vision), that the eye is dynamic, meaning it changes throughout the day. Our vision is not a “constant” acuity all day, nor for all conditions. Our vision is affected by our stress levels, light conditions, and visual habits. As a result, you could deduce that you would require multiple prescriptions in order to avoid being “overcorrected” in a given situation. Would you agree with what we’ve gone over so far? I think this is so fundamental, in my experience, that this must be understood in order to begin forming your own opinion about how you feel about what you would decide to do having this information.
I’ll assume for now that we agree on this point, that overcorrection is inevitable based on the prescription we get from the OD (especially considering most ODs do not warn us not to use this prescription for near work and in better light and mental conditions).
OK, so your original question was, “is permanent undercorrection bad for me?” I think this is a question you must know the answer to for yourself. If I had to give you an answer it would actually be YES, because PERMANENT ANY correction is bad for you, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not you choose to wear a -4.5 diopter lens over a -8 diopter lens, in my opinion, this is an unnatural state for your vision. However, I am not an eye doctor, so again, this is why you must know for yourself, given your own experience and knowldege if you want to wear glasses forever or not. The word “permanent” here is very important. This is really the only question. If you WANT to wear glasses for your whole life, and come to this conclusion on your own, then I would suggest you see the eye doctor or wear whatever glasses you already have that casue the least amount of strain. I say this, because, if you do choose to wear glasses your whole life, it’s inevitable that your prescription may change and without a trial lens kit or focometer you will need assistance in choosing a lens strength (unless you are lucky and can wear your -4.5 diopter lens forever, which may be the case).
However, and I hope this is where your questions are leading, if you want to improve your vision, back to its natural state, then you cannot do this while wearing overcorrected lenses and as your eyes improve your -4.5 d lenses will become too strong (overcorrected). In my experience, going without glasses has never been bad for me, and if I start straining, then I utilize the Bates Method, or if that won’t help enough I use the weakest pair of glasses that can assist me for that time.
This is a lengthy response, but I hope this helps to explain why the wording of these studies is SO important. Yes, permanent correction is bad, because our vision is constantly changing. BUT! You can do something about this, but going without glasses when you can, like you already are, but being mindful that you’re not straining when you’re not wearing glasses.
Continue on this path of knowledge and I think you’ll find your answer. And like the quote Otis provided in another post “To know and not to do is not to know”, so in effect once you KNOW you will DO what you need to do, and then you will see results.
Take care and I hope this helps! If anything is confusing or you have additional comments, please reply!
Sassy
Nancy and Helena,
Thank you Nancy for sharing your experience with Helena, it really spoke true for my own experience as well and I think it’s important that you mentioned how it does take time to work your way down. The three of us started with such high prescriptions that you do have to start analyzing your feelings and working your way down at your own pace. This process takes time 🙂
Warm regards to you both,
Sassy
Concerning the “prevention” vs “cure”.
My opinion: prevention still applies to those of us who are older (not children) and wear high prescriptions. I personally think prevention includes getting out of the loop of increased myopia (i.e., wearing overcorrected lenses) and “preventing” further myopia progression. This is the first step for everyone.
I try not to get too hung up on worrying about prevention vs cure because it all has the same roots. I think we all agree that wearing overcorrected negative lenses is detrimental for our vision. Never wearing negative lenses in the first place is the best approach for those who come across this knowledge early enough in life, reducing lens strength or going completely without glasses when possible is the next possibility, and finally working towards having healthy naturally clear vision is the ultimate goal for EVERYONE.
But I think we all agree~ it’s just that sometimes our definitions of words and our interests (based on our personal situations) leads us to be more concerned on one side or the other (e.g., helping prevent children from entering into staircase myopia, helping adults with weaker prescriptions clear back to normal, or taking a few years out of our lives to clear our own vision from a high prescription). It’s all the same underlying principle and a difficult road due to its second-opinion nature, meaning the majority with authority over vision care (at least in the US) do not agree with this path.
Sassy
For myself:
1. I wish some one would have TOLD me about prevention. This would be a choice (when I was at 20/50 to 20/60) about using these preventive methods.
2. The “bad habit” of the majority-opinion is to IGNORE all our pleading to:
a. Face facts
b. Empower us to “take control”.
3. SHARE this choice. Don’t tell us that
a. Using the plus (or Bates) or under-prescription) will
kill our eyes.
b. Be reasonable. State that while prevention is not easy — it is better than the minus lens.
c. But be honest — it is not easy.
Today I have 20/20 and a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter.
Today I make HEAVY use of PREVENTIVE methods — because
I have no desire to get back into it.
Today I am a lot older (and smarter) than I was at 8 years old when I was “led down the primrose path” by that terrible minus lens.
So — yes, I think we need “change”. But we must accept the “challenge” of it with out getting angry with each other because of our recognition that avoiding the minus — is indeed the second-opinion.
Otis
“Today I have 20/20 and a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter. (…) I have no desire to get back into it.”
What were your acuity and refractive state at their worst, and what did you do to turn it around? Can you perhaps also supply us with a timeline of your progress?
Thanks!
Martin — due to my “bad habits” as a child — that I spelled out a long time ago, i got SLIGHTLY into it. At that time, had I been offered the honest second-opinion for prevention (Bates/Prentice) I could have gotten out of it. But it was critical that I got an HONEST second-opinion. Instead I got a vast over prescription — that in my opinion — took my eyes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. So my eyes were “down” like Sassy’s. I recently was forced to have cataract surgery. That operation had had nothing to do with myopia — but the result of the replacement lens is as I have stated. But it is completely possible, that (becasue of my long-term reading habit) I COULD get back into it. I don’t even wish to take that chance. So I use the preventive plus — in much the same way as Sassy is working with “under-prescription”. The philosophy is the same. Also, what is: 1. Your prescription, and 2 Your Snellen? If you wish to respond. Otis
So what were your acuity and refractive state at their worst, and did you try to use the Bates method to improve your vision? To what degree were you succesful?
What exactly does refractive state mean? If your replacement lens gives you 20/20 vision, can you then say you have a refractive state of +1/2 diopter? Or is your refractive state the amount of diopters when your vision was at its worst?
The preventive method in children would be to read with a plus lens? Or would it be to read a Snellen chart everyday?
My prescription is -5.5D in both eyes. Snellen about 4/100.
Otis, pardon me, but I don’t think you answered any of Martin’s questions, which I have wondered about myself.
>What were your acuity and refractive state at their worst, and >what did you do to turn it around? Can you perhaps also >supply us with a timeline of your progress?
I remember your saying a while back here that you resisted going to -12 but you never said what you were wearing at the time, & also that you had the cataract operation which gave you a lens that put you slightly under-corrected for 20/20. I’m guessing you had a choice as to the correction you got in this lens. If this is true, I can surely understand why you’re so determined to keep your vision clear now. Am I stating this accurately? Thanks for setting the record straight.
Nancy
With a “down” rate of about -1/2 diopter per year, (please this average eases off as you get older), I was “down” about -6 to -8 diopters after college and some graduate school. The cataract operation resolved both the cataract, and the replacement lens gave me a postive refractive STATE of +1/2 dipoter. Before the operation, the could not tell what my visual acuity Might be. The cataract prevented even that. But my retina was good, and so the 20/20. I am thankful for that. The operation was done in two steps — one, and then several weeks later the other eye. I have had discussions with Sassy about these issues. I said that I was interested in what she was attempting, and that I would help her “technically” with any of the details. I did not “encourage” her, nor did I “discourage” her. But I truly feel that Snellen-clearing is difficult — but as she is proving, not quite impossible. I am also an engineer, so I was interested in Sassy’s ACCURATE measurement of her refractive STATE. And most important that she prove (to herself) that when she worked with no minus lens, her refractive STATE changed in a positive direction. I certainly can NEVER tell Sassy what she should do — and we both understand it that way. But her ability to clear her Snellen in sunlight (to the 20/70 to 20/50 level) with her refractive STATE of -5.5 diopters, makes scientific history as far as I am concerned. I encourage you to follow Sassy, and pray for her success as I do. Otis
So what were your acuity and refractive state at their worst, and did you try to use the Bates method to improve your vision? To what degree were you succesful?
Martin
Subject: Dr. Bates — the LEADER.
Re: Dr. Bates — the IDIOT.
I had been interested in this since I was 14 years old. But Bates was so badly bad-mouthed, I though he was an idiot.
At the time — I could not ‘research’ the issue. I also wondered WHY he received so much SCORN. It is not easy for a 14 year-old to “challenge” medical authority, now is it?
So Bates was the basis of my research — to find out how much was “true” and how much was “false”. I must put in quotes — because I know that each of us has our own definition of true and false. My definitions become pure science (and are not therefore “medical”. In science you either accept the definitions — or you don’t have science.
=========
To further respond:
Martin> What exactly does refractive state mean?
Otis> I means that I measure it using my own trial-lens kit.
Otis> For Sassy, it means she measures it with her (very accurate) Focomter.
Martin> If your replacement lens gives you 20/20 vision, can you then say you have a refractive state of +1/2 diopter?
Otis> AFTER I confirm 20/20 (in bright light) I then use
a plus lens (in 1/4 diopter steps) until I find a plus that
“just blurs” the 20/20 line. That plus is my refractive STATE. It is PROTECTIVE in nature. Eskimos who do no reading — had refractive STATES from zero to +3 diopters. This is NEVER a defect of “failure” of the eye, and is must be understood that way.
Martin> Or is your refractive state the amount of diopters when your vision was at its worst?
Otis> No, under “standard” test conditions — as I described above. Since it is MY measurement, it is my responsibility to do it right — as an engineer.
Martin> The preventive method in children would be to read with a plus lens?
Otis> To be STARTED before the child is given that first over-prescribed minus. But I would be glad to accept that the parents start Bates at that point — and PROVE that the child’s refractive STATE can be changed from -1/2 diopter to +1/2 diopter. But the parents would have to be educated about this type of work and in my judgment — should be taught to make these measurements themselves.
Martin> Or would it be to read a Snellen chart everyday?
Otis> Much like Bates 1913 study, they would read
the Snellen each day — so they know what they are doing,
and the goal of their efforts. Just a matter of personal wisdom.
Martin> My prescription is -5.5D in both eyes. Snellen about 4/100.
Otis> Thanks. The follow the leadership of Sassy. In terms of Snellen, she is doing excellent. Her refractive STATE should continue to move positive, but the general “rate” is about +1 diopter per year.
Otis> She will not be truly “out of it” until her refractive STATE reaches about -1 diopter.
Otis> That is the real nature of this preventive struggle.
Best,
Otis
OK! Thank you very much for these answers to my questions, Otis!
I wanted to thank you, Sassy, for the answer (and Nancy too!). Thanks to what you said, it’s made me realize I have to have the right lens for the job. I’ve got some even weaker powered lenses around, and if I can use them to comfortably read/use computer/other near work then I’ll switch to whatever is the weakest one I can work with. This I think will help me stop being overcorrected (it will take a bit of experimentation–depends on light, etc, of course). I will try to go without as much as possible as well, of course. When I was younger, I wore my glasses all the time (even showering! I only took them off for about 2 seconds while drying them off). And I didn’t have extra pairs of glasses around. Now that I do, I can have the right tool for the job, and definitely make sure not to be overcorrected. Hopefully as time goes by, I can “move up a notch” (of course my “full powered” glasses broke and my “reading” glasses have now been promoted to the job of “full powered” lenses–that probably would have happened slower if not for the breaking accident, but I’m grateful for it nonetheless).
Hi Sassy,
Wow, its nice to hear about your progress! Keep it up 🙂 can’t wait to hear when your are glasses free.
Would you have any advice on first starting out on using glasses to lower myopia. The one thing I’m stuck on other than lowering it to a comfortable level is what is this cylinder and axis degree I should be lowering it to? Should it be zero? I know one of my eyes does shift a bit on the axis and probably the degree of cylinder (the d is about the same), due to stress, light and other conditions.
Thanks, any advice would be appreciated, I would probably use glasses only as needed, ie for the days I feel a bit of a headache, backache etc, dizziness and of course driving 😛
Linda
Linda,
I am not an eye doctor myself. My behavioral optometrist’s rule of thumb when giving someone reduced prescription less is to eliminate the cylinder correction completely if it is less than -2. I was at -9.75 with -1.75 when I started & he gave me pairs of -10 & -9 glasses with no cylinder at all. These were a bit disorienting at first, but I adjusted quickly, & then steadily came down in the acuity correction. If your cylinder is a big correction, he would keep the angle the same but reduce the amount by 2. Like the acuity correction, the ultimate goal is no correction at all, but if your prescription is very strong you can’t jump to that too quickly. Otherwise your nervous system will go into fear mode & you won’t be able to function without a lot of anxiety, which of course won’t help you relax & improve. Hope this helps.
Nancy
You’re welcome Helena, and good luck! It sounds like you’re well on your way 🙂
Sassy
Hi Linda,
In my opinion, and in my experience, it is a good goal to reduce the cylindrical correction to 0. I was fortunate in that my cylindrical correction wasn’t very strong and I immediately began wearing glasses without any astigmatism correction.
Nancy’s advice is very good, especially considering she is seeing a behavioral optometrist and has experience “stepping down” this part of a prescription.
You could also read this post by irelandseyes, as he also “stepped down” his cylindrical strength:
http://irelandseyes.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/zenni-part-2/
I’m sorry I can’t be of more help. Like Nancy said, some people can’t just get rid of this correction all at once so this will be a very personal decision on your part and trying to decide what you’re comfortable with. When I first started I didn’t really think anything of it, just got rid of it and my eyes adjusted — but this may not work well for everyone.
If you start to get a headache or feel dizzy, you may be able to use these moments to become aware of what preceeds these feelings (i.e., straining, poor posture, squinting, etc). I too start wearing my glasses if I start getting a headache, and other times I find that all I need to do is straighten up, breathe, blink, and shift my vision and it goes away. Sometimes, especially when starting out with a strong prescription, it’s difficult to go without glasses and we must find a suitable undercorrected pair to help us work, and this is much better in my opinion than straining and developing poor postural habits. The main thing is to develop a habitual awareness of your visual habits, posture, etc and this will help you know what poor habits can be improved.
Good luck and feel free to ask more questions if we didn’t answer that one well enough!
Sassy
Hi again Linda,
At first I ordered glasses with a reduced spherical correction but with the same original cylindrical/axis correction — then I didn’t like them and ordered new ones that were equal strength in both eyes and without a cylindrical correction. I decided early on that I wanted to just “force” my eyes to go without an astigmatism correction and that I didn’t want one eye being largely more corrected than the other. It was incredible how quickly my eyes adjusted to these glasses… within a matter of weeks!
Sassy
PS This is a copy of my reply to your other comment under the “Glasses Prescription” post. I did start out with using the cylindrical correction but within a month I decided to go completely without it. (I checked through my old email to look through my orders from Zenni Optical). If you want more details I would be happy to provide a list of the glasses prescriptions I’ve ordered over the last year.