Though this could probably go on off topic section I think the eyes are a very important part of sport..

I read an artcle (try to post it after) on being able to improve your vision without galsses etc

Over the years I've heard mention of these kinds of things but never come across anything really. Well the article, found on the CHECK Institute web site, sounded really good. The more I learn about the Institute and Check the more impressed I am. Currently my training partner is doing some studies through them and I have seen some of the training videos and met a and talked to a few people that have trained with him or a practitioner. I'm totally impressed by all I see.

So its coming from a source that I respect and I think is very reiable.

So I got one of the books refferenced and it says some interesting stuff.

Basically you can care for your eyes, like we do our teeth. We can exercise them to improve vision etc

Just like most 'experts' in the medical feild, we are given cover ups and band aids and prevention and the actual problem is rarely delt with.

Well there do seem to be ways to improve vision and maintain vision.

To me thats fascinating (especially since I wear glasses).

Here is a little tid bit (just starting book but looked ahead to astigmetism, as its my main problem)

Bad posture is often the cause (genetics are an excuse so much of us use-not as dominant a factor in most health issues as we've been lead to, and would like to believe) of astigmetism.

Sounds crazy-k basically if your head is tilted 10 degrees to the left all the time (mine always was) the pull on the eye muscles is uneven and eventually it distorts the shape of the eye (which is what astigmetism is).

Even as a kid at the hair dressors they had to move my head straight as I didn't know what straight was. To me it was tilted.

Well there are corrective exercises for it (and most if not all eye problems). I'm going to give them a try and I'll let you know if I need to get me perscription reduced.

Parents-it says kids learn to see. Its not all natural amd often eye problems go unnoticed, or eye weaknesses. If a kid has a problem with tieing a shoe you can see it and help or correct. Its much harder to see eye weaknesses (remember a large part is learned). Might be worth looking into if you have kids. Vision plays a huge role in doing well in school etc(taht comes from many sources.

Not surprisingly nutrition plays a role too. Given eye what it needs and antioxidants to protect too...

The book I got is
"Improve Your Vision Without Glasses or Contact Lenses"
-Dr. Steven M. Beresford, Dr. David W. Muris, Dr. Merrill J. Allen, Dr Francis A. Young

I'll post article if I can

Natural Vision Correction

Jeannette Goodman MA, MAT
Natural vision correction was a new concept for me just five months ago. At that time, I was seeking help for vertigo which I had experienced irregularly since a car accident in 1973. My vertigo had appeared for unknown reasons for 25 years. The last neurologist I visited predicted that it would become worse when I was in my 40's and that I would have to learn to live with it. This prediction was correct. There were times when I found it difficult to work or function in any way that required head rotation or changes in body position. During one particularly bad period, I consulted a chiropractor. His manipulations of my neck and the stretch recommended produced some relief, although the problem still returned. I was subsequently referred to a NUCCA Chiropractor who determined that my C1 vertebra, the atlas, was misaligned. Realignment did not last very long or prevent reoccurrence of the vertigo. It was during my Level II CHEK Internship (during which I was having problems) that I consulted Paul Chek about the course of action he recommended. Three months later, I was evaluated. My major complaint was of vertigo, but my assessment results indicated a complex set of problems which involved my neck, shoulder, stomach, liver, colon, teeth, and eyes. I was wearing monovision contact lenses which were exacerbating my inability to use binocular vision, and making my vision poorer. I also had poorly coordinated eye movements and trigger points in the extrinsic eye muscles. Because of the importance of the eyes to the function of the rest of the body, a major part of my treatment plan consisted of natural vision correction.

Natural vision correction is often referred to as the Bates Method, named for William H. Bates, M.D., who first published his ideas and techniques for correcting vision problems without glasses in Better Eyesight magazine in 1919. His book on the subject, Perfect Sight without Glasses was subsequently published in 1920. Currently available is a revised edition of his book titled The Bates Method for Better Eyesight without Glasses, as well as many other books based on his work. Dr. Bates began using natural vision correction techniques because his clinical experience and research revealed that the eye is never fixed in shape.

The eye accommodates throughout the day for near and far vision and is able to accommodate for good vision throughout life even if a person has a seemingly permanent decrease in visual acuity. The changes in the shape of the eye ball which allow for the ability to see at a distance and close up are caused by six extrinsic eye muscles exerting tension on the eye. Bates attributed near sightedness, also known as myopia, to elongation of the eyeball due to excess tension in the superior and inferior oblique muscles. He attributed far sightedness, also known as hyperopia (or hypermetropia) to flatness of the eyeball due to excess tension in the recti muscles. Astigmatism was described as asymmetrical changes in the shape of the cornea due to unequal muscular tension. He found that these conditions could be improved or eliminated by changes in muscular tension. In his research he used drugs or surgery to eliminate the tension. His treatment techniques were designed to produce this release of tension and improvement of weakness with eye exercise and relaxation.(1)

Bates' primary techniques can be summarized as follows. Palming is a method for relaxation of the eyes. It is done by lightly placing the hands over the eyes to eliminate outside light, then relaxing and visualizing total blackness. Swinging is another method to relax the gaze and avoid staring. This is done by rotating the head and shoulders from side to side while lifting the heel opposite to the rotation. The eyes are open, but there is no effort to focus on any part of the visual field as it passes. Blinking or flashing is practice in seeing clearly. It involves looking at a test chart or card clearly for a brief time after resting the eyes, then closing them before blur begins. Central fixation is a result of focusing light rays on a small part of the retina called the fovea centralis where visual acuity is best. It is practiced by seeing only part of the visual field clearly at any one time while the rest is seen less clearly. Memory is another method for practicing clear vision by using known images to help the eyes focus. Lastly, Dr. Bates believed that exposure of the eyes to natural sunlight was highly beneficial to health of the eyes. He recommended exposing the closed eyes to the sun every day and working in natural light without sunglasses as often as possible. (2)

Today there are many books available which offer self treatment plans for natural vision correction. The ones referenced here are variations based on Bates methods and other philosophies. In 1920, Dr. Bates recommended doing away with all corrective lenses while relearning to see. Today's authors suggest using glasses only when needed, using glasses which have a prescription less than 20/20, or even using opposite lenses. (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) In the books referenced here, methods for releasing eye tension and improving weaknesses are presented in many forms using aids such as eye charts, pictures, line drawings and massage techniques. Bates and other authors agree that different methods work for different people, and that once successful methods are found they should be practiced for a few minutes daily to prevent relapse. (8)

All of the techniques presented by Dr. Bates were methods for achieving the goal "to secure rest or relaxation, first of the mind and then of the eyes." (9) "Perfect eyesight can be attained only by relaxation." (10) The need for both mental and muscular relaxation is emphasized by other authors as well. Postural muscular tension, especially in the neck is associated with eye pain, stress, and poor vision. Relief of this tension is necessary for vision correction. (11,12,13,14,15,16) The association of eye stress with postural stress has been noted throughout centuries. The relief of these stresses is still practiced in yoga (17) and many Eastern philosophies.(18) Chaitow (19) reporting from Eeman states that the body retains unconscious muscular contractions as a result of past activity which plays a role in the inability of the body to relax. He says that until neuromuscular relaxation is attained, relaxation of the mind cannot be. The connection of the eyes to many parts of the body is highlighted by the vestibulo-occular reflex which maintains the eyes on a target when the head turns (20) and the occulo-pelvic reflex in which the changes in position of eyes and pelvis are related. (21) There are medical diagnostic tests which involve eye movements in connection with gait, stance, head/neck position, and ear stimulation. The Romberg test, Hallpike test, positional and gait tests, and ENG tests, to name a few, all rely on the absence of or irregularity of eye movements to assist in finding the site of a lesion. (22) Paul Chek has pointed out the many areas of the body which refer pain to the eyes.(23)

The kidneys and liver are often associated with the eyes, perhaps because of their role as filters to remove toxins from the body which are evidenced in the eyes (24, 25, 26) or because of their relationship with energy meridians or chakras. (27, 28, 29, 30) A common connection of the stomach with the eyes is motion sickness. Trying to hold objects still with the eyes against a moving background is the initial stress.(31) Motion sickness occurs when the hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine rise in the blood, and in response, another hormone, vasopressin, also rises. This causes stomach contractions which lead to vomiting.(32) Eye function can even be associated with the flow of cerebrospinal fluid (33, 34). Because they eyes are affected by so many factors, there may be many approaches to and amounts of time necessary to improve vision.

This is exactly what I learned as a result of my evaluation by Paul Chek. My treatment plan consisted of what Paul calls "surrounding the dragon" of vertigo by treating all the areas found in my assessment to be associated with it. He particularly recommended natural vision correction because of the connection of the eyes with all the other problem areas, and because the eyes are the first control for the position of the rest of the body in space.

I have used many of the methods and techniques described in the books I read. Some of them produced better results for me than others, just as Dr. Bates said. Palming, flashing, and sunning have helped improve my vision, as have some other methods not mentioned previously. Range of motion exercise, near and far shifting, and reading small print in poor lighting have also helped. My training as a CHEK Practitioner has taught me to assess length and tension imbalances in muscles and treat them. Therefore, since eye muscles are striated tissue, I have tried to stretch the obliques and strengthen the recti in addition to the other techniques. I have had weekly NMT treatments for my neck and shoulder, and have tried to duplicate the eye muscle trigger point releases I had during treatment at the CHEK Institute. My clearest vision has occurred after a neck treatment when I was relaxed and had previously done my eye exercises. I use an eye chart, and have noted days when my visual acuity has doubled. The times when it decreases are inevitably related to stress. At these times not only is my vision poorer, but the accupressure points around my eyes are very tender, and my extrinsic eye muscles are sore. I wear my glasses infrequently, usually only when driving at night. Since I started this treatment program five months ago, I have had one episode of dizziness. This was not vertigo, just dizziness when rotating my head. It happened only once and was very mild when compared to the past. I plan to continue using the natural vision correction methods which work best for me, and perhaps consult a natural vision correction specialist in the future.

As we learn more about the functions and organization of the body, new treatment options open. The importance of eye function to the rest of the body is immense and should be considered when making recommendations for treatment. There are behavioral optometrists and natural vision correction specialists in many cities. References are available in many of the books about natural vision correction. The specific abilities to connect eye and body function so that appropriate treatment is recommended are part of the Level III CHEK Internship.

Biographical Information
Jeannette Goodman is a Level II CHEK Intern. She has an MA degree in audiology from Northwestern University where she worked as a research audiologist. She has many publications in peer reviewed journals and has presented research findings at national conferences. She also has a MAT degree from National-Louis University and has published a science curriculum for gifted middle school children. Jeannette has worked in the fitness industry for more than 10 years. She is currently a Corrective Exercise Specialist in the Chicago area and an adjunct faculty member in the Health and Human Wellness Department of Harper College in Palatine, Il.

References
1. Bates, W. H., The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1981.
2. Ibid., pp. 193-200.
3. Beresford, S.M., Muris, D.W., Allen, M.J., and Young, F.A., Improve Your Vision without Glasses or Contact Lenses, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996. p.84.
4. Goodrich, J., Natural Vision Improvement., Celestial Arts, Berkeley, CA, 1985. pp.40-41.
5. Quackenbush, T., Relearning to See., North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 1997. p 36.
6. Roy, M., Eyerobics, Thorsons, Harper Collins, Hammersmith, London, 1999. p. 66.
7. Zuraw, R.A. and Lewanski, R.T., Perfect Eyesight, Taoist Publishers, Troy MI, 1998. p. 17.
8. Bates, W. op.cit. p. 42.
9. Ibid., p. 193.
10. Ibid., p. 40.
11. Beresford, S. op.cit. p.32.
12. Goodrich, J. op.cit. p.36.
13. Quackenbush, T. op.cit. p. 134.
14. Roy, M. op.cit. p. 51.
15. Thie, J.F., Touch for Health, DeVorss Publications, Marina del Rey, CA. 1994. P. 66.
16. Zuraw, R. op.cit. p.17.
17. Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Center, Yoga Mind and Body. DK Publishing, New York, 1998. Pp. 18-19.
18. Zuraw, R. op. cit.
19. Chaitow, L., Modern Neuromuscular Techniques, Churchill Livingstone, New York. 1996. p.14.
20. Young, P.A. and Young, P.H., Basic Clinical Neuroanatomy, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD., 1997. Pp. 117-119.
21. Chaitow, L., Muscle Energy Techniques., Churchill Livingstone, New York., 1996. p. 22.
22. Blakley, B.W., and Siegel, M., Feeling Dizzy, Macmillian, New York, 1995. pp. 54-58.
23. Chek, P., CHEK Certification Program Level III Manual., C.H.E.K. Institute, Encinitas, CA. 1992, 1997, 2000.
24. Goodrich, J. op.cit. pp. 31,35.
25. Zuraw, R. op. cit., pp. 65-110.
26. Thie, J. op.cit., p. 66.
27. Zuraw, R. op. cit., p. 115.
28. Sivananda, op.cit., p. 111.
29. Thie., J. op.cit., p. 17.
30. Goodrich, J. op.cit., pp. 44, 112.
31. Quackenbush, T. op.cit., p. 130.
32. Blakely, B. op.cit., p. 111.
33. Weil, A., Spontaneous Healing, Ballantine Books, New York, 1995. p. 36.
34. Quackenbush, T. op.cit., 339.


taken from Check Institute web site

(interesting article on the site called "Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year"-check it out)

A follow up-authors experiance about a year later

Behavioral Optometry in Natural Vision Correction

Jeannette T.Goodman, MA, MAT,
CHEK Practitioner, Level III, Golf Biomechanic
In October of 2000, I wrote an article for this web site describing natural vision correction using the methods pioneered by William H. Bates, MD. There are many books and videos available, which use variations of his teachings, and some of these are listed in the bibliography included with that original article. After using these techniques for about a year, I had measurable changes in vision. My myopia improved so that my binocular acuity was equal. Before using natural vision correction, there was a difference of 2.00 diopters between my eyes. I was able to do away with my astigmatism completely. As I practiced the methods and tested myself, I became aware of changes in acuity that varied over time. That is, some days my vision was considerably better than on other days. For instance, while driving to work on some days I could clearly read license plates two cars away while other days the plates in front of me were blurry. Stress always made my vision worse, and relaxation made it better. I became increasingly less dependent on glasses and more comfortable with a certain amount of blur.

Although I made improvements in acuity and comfort, I wanted to improve my ability to use binocular vision and have better depth perception. I looked for a Bates Method teacher in my area, but did not find one. An Internet search led me to behavioral optometry and to Dr. Paul Lederer. Behavioral optometrists use special tests to determine what is causing a visual problem. Many of their clients have reading difficulty, attention deficit disorders, strabismus/amblyopia (lazy eye), or visual perceptual motor difficulty. Some behavioral optometrists use prisms and/or lenses to correct vision, while others use vision therapy with or without prisms or lenses, and some even recommend psychological therapy to deal with various levels of stress that cause or worsen vision problems.

I went to Dr. Lederer's office in July 2001 for an evaluation. This was unlike any other eye examination I had ever experienced, analogous to the difference between a personal trainer's assessment and a CHEK practitioner's assessment. I discovered that visual acuity, or how well you read letters on the eye chart, is only the beginning.

There were tests of my ability to use binocular vision to fuse images from the two eyes into one, and to use that image to see depth. There were also tests for my ability to discriminate visual frequencies independent of color. "Binocular function breaks down into different frequencies like hearing. Lower spatial frequencies are more global-ambient (transient) functions for orientation, balance, and movement detection; and are faster functionally. They are dominantly for the 'where' is it systems in the visual pathway. Higher spatial frequencies are more central-sustained functions for identification, the 'what' is it systems in the visual pathway. Color vision is also linked to this end of the spatial frequency spectrum an these systems are slower in timing." (6)

In addition to tests for isolated binocular function, I was also tested for my ability to use vision in an integrated functional situation. These tests involved standing while attempting to do binocular fusion using pictures and objects.

The results of these and other tests indicated that besides being myopic, I had a large muscle imbalance between the left inferior and superior oblique muscles, which pulled my left eye up and inward. This resulted in a head tilt to the left in order to keep my eyes level with the horizon. I also had abnormal retinal correspondence, which caused me to alternately focus with either the right or the left eye rather than use binocular vision. I learned that this was a neurological strategy I developed to avoid having double vision (diplopia).

Dr. Lederer explained, "Anomalous correspondence is a rewiring in the pathway that allows more primitive binocular functions to exist even though the eyes are not in exact alignment." In my case the central vision pathways were compromised by non-concomitant motor alignment, that is muscle function, and were compensated by an anomalous correspondence sensory adaptation, which allowed optimum functions, without diplopia, under the limitations of motor function. A good adaptation, but not normal. However, normal correspondence existed in the more global, lower spatial frequency pathways for orientation. Hence, therapy that focused on building more binocular function and orientation in the global aspects of vision supported improving my overall binocular functions. Dr Lederer further explained that in many cases, "one can achieve all that is needed to normalize visual function, while in other cases it is important to normalize functions that can be changed and compensate for others. When an individual is in control of the visual system rather that the system controlling the patient, when the patient understands their visual situation and can minimize visual stress, then limitations are not limitations." (6)

The plan that he outlined was very much like the one used by CHEK Practitioners. That is, isolation before integration, increasing levels of neurological load, practice outside of the clinic, and 6-week re-evaluations for progress followed by writing new therapy programs based on changes. Because my visual problems also cause postural problems, therapy started in a seated position and progressed to standing, standing on one leg, and standing on a rocker board. The original therapy tasks used large easy-to-see targets with many extra visual and auditory cues to help teach me how to see differently. The targets progressed to become more complex and have fewer outside cues. For instance, at first I needed to use red/green glasses to do any fusion tasks because the glasses produce a color change when both eyes are used. On the other hand, I could not use polarized glasses because I did not get the color change feedback to indicate that I was using my eyes correctly. My original therapy was designed to increase my ability to diverge, or use peripheral vision. As I was able to use divergence, I was also able to use binocular vision more easily. Then I could fuse images at different distances, and combine the use of peripheral vision with a more centrally focused effort. I had noticed that my tendency to be centrally focused made it very difficult to ride a mountain bike. I needed to see a wider visual field, to be able to see relative distance and obstacles instead of focusing on my immediate position. I worked on this in therapy using disco lights and a swinging ball as a target.

The last part of improved visual function to appear was depth perception. More than 20 therapy sessions were required before I could see depth. For most of my therapy I did not know what the therapists were talking about when they asked if an image was "floating." When I finally saw it, I was amazed. The world looks great in 3D! Depth perception is not automatic when there is binocular vision. It is a more advanced neurological function. I still do not always see depth immediately, but now I know how.

My therapy is finished for now. At my final check up I learned that because my visual system is in a delicate stage of balance now and might be pushed into a dysfunctional pattern by doing too much, Dr. Lederer decided that therapy should stop for a while. He explained that future goals are to maintain what I have achieved and to always assure that any future gains should be considered and explored as long as they support function. I will see him again in six months. Now that my vision has improved, I am ready to continue making improvements in other systems that are also involved with my dysfunction. With the vision door open, the rest of the Totem Pole that constitutes the mind and body is also open. Other work I am using includes, but is not limited to, atlas adjustments, neuromuscular therapy, cranial sacral therapy, chakra balance, acupuncture, qi gong, and, of course, functional exercise.

The field of vision correction is quite broad. There are several different theories as to why visual problems occur, ranging from muscular to neurological to emotional, and they each have validity. There are also several methods for correcting vision, which fit these theories and are equally valid. Vision is affected by muscle function and balance, neurological integrity, learning, emotional factors, and systemic integration of all these. Vision also affects each of these and, therefore, many body systems. (1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10) The use of vision therapy is becoming more widespread as evidenced by radio ads for natural vision correction, and a recent newspaper article, which reported on the use of vision therapy for improving sports performance. (9) As more of our clients learn about this option, we will be expected to have a knowledge of it.

CHEK Practitioners are aware that vision plays an extremely important role in the functioning of any individual, and we are trained to evaluate that role beginning in Level III. However, a practitioner at any level can understand that just as exercise must be tailored to each individual, so should vision therapy. Due to the many influences on the visual system, therapy that is effective for one person might not be for another. Therefore, it is beneficial to clients to develop a referral network, which includes not only ophthalmologists and optometrists, but behavioral optometrists and Bates instructors as well.

(also from Check Institute site)

Anyone reading all that will need a LONG eye-test 8-0

lol, I tell you what, if you correct your eye sight to 20/20 with this ... I'll send you $100 usd.

How about perscription reduction??

I met a woman the other day who had done it a little and had improvements and her husband stuck with it and had his glasses taken off his licence.

There is also a place in the area my eye doc just told me about (since I brought it up)

You'll laugh but I already think there has been improvement.

Also with one of the exercises my eyes went into focus for a short period of time. That tells me they can. Just aren't trained to so to speak.

Astigmatism is due to an irregular cornea... it seems doubtful that the extraocular muscles, which attach to the sclera (white part of the eye), would be imbalanced in such a way as to distort the entire eyeball, causing a distortion of the cornea.
The blurbs you posted above went in a lot of directions - abnormal retinal correspondence is very rare, which is a neural mechanism; there were also issues with the accomodative system and needing glasses when this system is stressed, which varies; the alignment of the eyes - binocular vision... etc. yes, there are some exercises which can improve things like accomodative facility and to help you keep control of the relative alignment of your eyes, but both of these things are neural... the astigmatism is a physical "deformity"... likely what the palming is doing for you is making the cornea spherical, but this is only momentary, and is not permanent in any case... this concept has been taken to overnight contact lenses (ortho-k), which also helps "get rid" of glasses within moderate prescriptions.
An interesting topic... can talk more about this.

mt411-thanks for the imput. Personally i trust the source alot. That means alot more to me than conventional thinking. Of course I'm all ears to learn more. Thing is I believe what is taught in our school systems developed due to buisness and politics etc So just cause traditional learning says its a certain way doesn't make me believe its true.

docs/dentists/optomitrists etc

I've read some interesting things on dentistry-In Europe some researchers believe that up to half degenerative diseases(pretty sure it was degenerative diseases) are caused by modern dental practices.

Considering docs make money when you are sick and optometrists make money as your eyes progressively get worse etc Well makes me wonder.

Nutrition and alternative aproaches brought me back from not being able to work (hardly) or exercise to fighting shape when the docs couldn't do a thing.

I consider the source before I consider the info. If I trust the source I'll look into it before scratching it out. If I don't trust the source I'll think twice.

Thoughts?

What's your prescription by the way? Has it been changing at all?
The Bates method has been around for a long time, with no proven success. I think if there was some way to get rid of glasses that simply, the opticals would be out of business.
I agree with you that doctors are far from having all the answers, but I think the good ones can be very helpful. I would say the majority of doctors, particularly GPs, are useless for problems that they don't handle every day. When you start getting to the specialist level, I think the skill level comes up - this is who the GPs refer to. Then there are subspecialists, who the specialists refer to. It all narrows down the pool of problems they see every day so they have a higher volume of these rarer problems. I think it's hard to find the right doctor, but with a lot of wasted time, I think you can find docs to help you with some pretty weird problems.
On the other hand, there are problems that the medical community has no solutions for.
But then there are also problems that I'd say are hard to deal with because they're subjective - for example "blurry vision"... the criteria for clear vision can vary quite a bit between individuals. Some thing for "pain". The person's feeling about the treatment can also influence it - the placebo effect.

I think there are still areas of vision that has to be researched, but there are also areas of research that has already been done that will be applied by the doctors as it becomes practical/possible.

I mean a lot of that stuff about the polaroids, red/green glasses, etc., is already known, but most optometrists wouldn't go into it either because you don't need it done on a routine eye exam, or because they don't know how to do it. Especially with the time=$ pace, a lot of stuff gets left out, that could be done.
Sure nutrition factors into your vision. Deficiencies, for example of vitamin A or b12, will definitely mess with your eyes. There are environment effects, like the prolonged near work we do in our society that probably affects development of the eye and its function. How eyes respond to certain things also vary from person to person.
There are weird problems out there with eyes... vision is a very complicated thing. I agree that binocular vision can be trained, and that can improve your perception for things like sports. There are exercises that can be done for the eyes to improve binocularity, like the "pencil push-up"... you see this one kicking around in some books of magic solutions, mixed in with crap like the Bates method, or that you should look at the sun, because light is good for your eyes (actually UV light exposure is associated with cataracts, and you can also severely damage your sight by staring at the sun too long, for example with eclipse viewing).
The accomodative system is also complicated, and it can also be trained with exercises. And accomodation is fundamentally linked with the binocular vision system...

In my opinion, astigmatism being caused by muscle imbalances is nonsense. I mean, eye anatomy has been studied for hundreds of years, and surgery is done on the extraocular muscles regularly. The muscles are attached to the sclera, and this is a quite rigid layer. It's erroneous to jump from the fact that astigmatism is caused by "mishaping" of the cornea, to assuming that it would also be caused by mishaping of the sclera.
You can quanitatively assess the shape of the cornea very accurately with a corneal topographer. By the way, astigmatism can also be caused by tilting of the lens inside your eye. As I was saying before, this Bates method concept has been adapted to ortho-K, where you wear a contact lens on your eye overnight and then your astigmatism is gone in the morning. But it's temporary. Or you can get laser surgery done to get rid of it. But your eyes can change with time, and the healing process is not 100% predictable. The Bates method just flattens your cornea temporarly.
Muscle exercises won't get rid of astigmatism. Tilting the head can be a behavioural thing in kids. Sometimes it is an adaptation to muscle imbalances, but this is to allow the eyes to align and move properly. For example (simplified), if you have a muscle problem with won't let you look right, you may adapt by turning your head to the right, so your muscles won't have to.
If the assumption that tilting your head helped you see better, then you should have noticed your vision getting worse when you straightened it out. I doubt you did. The only reason you'd have worse vision in this case would be if you had a muscle problem that didn't allow your eyes to work together with your head in a straight position (e.g. double vision, eye strain).

Yea, I agree that business and politics do influence what's taught in schools, but so does research. While research won't always give us perfect answers, I think over time knowledge develops and gets improved with experience. There are some things that aren't known yet, or perhaps that never will. There are also some things that are known, but that aren't in use or accepted by the mainstream.
But there is also some stuff that's just plain unsubstantiated garbage, that's passed off as "non-traditional knowledge". For example, old wives tales. Some of them may be true. Some may contain some truth. Some may be just plain wrong.
Yes, the source is a good way to judge the veracity of knowledge. But there are no infallible sources. And just because the source may be a good authority on one matter doesn't mean he is on others.

"GPs, are useless for problems that they don't handle every day. When you start getting to the specialist level, I think the skill level comes up"

I think when you specialise then you know lots about only one thing. GP's no little about lots.

Regardless the medical community has designed the school system to teach in a very allopathic way.

The host vs germ debate that was squashed (30's?) is an example of how the system works. Regardless whos right, not everything is looked at. Just like the more resent example of this continuing debate (which, at least in N. America gets almost no public attention) is HIV causing AIDS contriversy and retro viruses causing some cancer contreversy.

The point is docs are taught in a controled system that is pollitically controled. I'm not arguing whos right here just saying that docs are taught a certain way. Even if their intentions are great their education is controled.

Put it in perspective is the N. American medical community makes money when your sick.

How many examples can you give me of docs curing, say with drugs, a degenerative disease?

Anyone ever had a doc make them healthy?

My bud just got through med school in US. He said they did 3 or 4 days on nutrition.

Sorry but a medical degree doesn't make me want to listen to a doc. Drugs and couvering up symptoms doesn't impress me. Nor does the fact that many drugs, like some for arthritus, actually speed up arthritus. They only mask the pain. Same with some diabeties drugs-they make it worse.

Sorry but I look to people who make money by making people healthy. I also think that the 'host' theory is worth looking into and med runs on the germ theory.

Research-research is strongly influenced by research dollars. There are few big bucks going to prevention. Large amounts go to 'cure'. Its a money maker.

Bates-I know a woman who had positive results and her husband had glasses taken off lisence.

But the fact is that glasses and vision progress. 'Corrective' lenses never improved anyones eyes. So why not look to actually taking care of health? Take reponsibility for our health and stop going to the quick fix (couver up of symptoms).

Thats my thinking.

Can you show me the research (the actual research) thats proves HIV causes AIDS?

The focusing of our eyes is controlled by muscles. Unless the shape of our eye changes or the pressure within our eyes changes, then it is a change in the muscles that actually causes our sight to reduce. Doesn't that make sense? If they are muscles, then they can certainly be improved by conditioning, yes?

About 7 years ago, I heard about eye exercises improving vision. A friend of mine told me some exercises to try. I've experimented with it a little bit and I've had some decent short term results. I haven't kept with it consistently, but I was able to sharpen my focus for a few days or a week or so. I've mainly done this because my work over the past 12 years has mostly involved looking at computer screens. Computer screens can wreck your vision. I've used the exercises to maintain my eyesight rather than improve it.

Here's an example of one simple exercise...
1. Hold a card about 6-7 inches from your face, with the top of the card about nose level.
2. Just above the card, there should be a tree or some other object very far off in the distance with detail that you can focus on.
3. Look at the card for 5 seconds.
4. Then look at the tree for 5 seconds.
5. When looking at each object, try to focus your vision as intently as possible so that you are exercising the focusing muscles in your eye. Try to focus on every little detail of the card and the tree.
6. Keep repeating and soon you should drop the time that you look at each object. 4 seconds...then 3 seconds.
7. After a minute or so of this, then change the objective so you try to look at each object only as long as it takes to focus on it.
8. As soon as you gain focus of the object, then switch to the other object.
9. You want to do this as fast as possible, but don't cheat! Only change objects AFTER you have successfully focused on the details of the object to the best of your ability.

This will make your eyes really tired and possibly make them a little blurry after you are done. However, the next day or two, you will probably see improvement on how far off in the distance you can see, for example. I know I experienced improvements.

I have seen a large difference short term and even day to day depending how much I ware my glasses. If I can focus better sometimes then its not simply bad eyes. Its a focus problem. Why then would it be unreasonable to strengthen your focusing ability?

Trust docs and take a pill(3rd leading cause of death in US) or take action.

Glasses stop you from trying to focus. As do most drugs cover up sysmptoms. Not dealing with causes.

Glasses focus the light for you. Just like a cane helps you to walk. In older age, presbyopia (not being able to focus) happens to everyone, which is why those people need reading glasses. In myopic (nearsighted) people, there is overfocusing already, so those people can take off glasses to read, and they'll never need reading glasses. But it's not because they have exceptional eyes. You can't stop presbyopia with exercises.
There are two main elements in the eye which are responsible for your focusing. The cornea and the intraocular lens. Change of focus is done by the lens, which is controlled by "muscles", but these are muscles inside the eye, not the ones that are outside the eyes and move it around.
Accomodative problems do occur in young people and this can be helped through exercises, which is what Ritchie described above. But note that this muscle (the muscle of the ciliary body) is innervated by the parasympathetic system, not the voluntary nervous system. Eye exercises and the like is nothing new. There is a whole field, called orthoptics, which deals with it. And it can help.
My beef is with the Bates method, because this asserts that you can change the eye's other "focusing" system (more accurately, the eye's other source of refractive power, since it does not change, for our purposes). Yes, it does change it momentarily, but it's not permanent. And furthermore, I added that "palming" your cornea through your closed lids (assuming this was the definition of the Bates method) to flatten out the astigmatism is the same thing as using ortho-K lenses to do the same thing overnight. Not a new concept. But a refractive problem is different from an accomodative (focus problem).

I agree with the comments about lack of prevention, but then who listens when they're healthy... smokers always tell the story about their gradnfather who lived to be 100 who drank and smoked every day of his life. I think the comment about drugs is a bit one-sided too. Drugs are mostly meant to simulate the actions of our body. Degenerative diseases often have an unknown cause, so sure the drugs just cover up the symptoms, because often that's the only level of our understanding. For example, myasthenia gravis... the neurons stop providing enough acetylcholine for muscle function, so they give drugs to replace the ACh. Yes, this is kind of masking the problem, but it's kind of also solving it. Obviously, the perfect cure would be just to magically make the neurons cooperate again. Yep, the pharmaceutical firms make a whole bunch of money off our over-medicated society, and they may often have questionable ethics. But on the other hand, I'm a bit more inclined to listen to people with some research behind them (granted that "research" has led people to put a lot more faith into the medical community than perhaps warranted) than naturopathic methods. I mean, the latter has some basis on going on remedies that work, but I think a lot of crap gets mixed in on this bandwagon, like all the magic supplements that people sell... some stuff, like creatine, works... a lot of stuff is just a rip. I just get the feeling that the naturopathic approach has less understanding, and just goes with what works. Effective, but if you don't know the basis of how it works, it's hard to correct for non-ideal situations. A lot of supplements have no information about the doses you're taking, since the active ingredient isn't known. So in the end, it seems like it's paralleling the ignorant doctors who just prescribe without knowing. Having some medical school, in my opinion, is better than not having it.

I had outstanding eye sight my entire life, I'm talking better that 20/20. Then I bought 19 inch computer screen...after a year of staring at the AX, my eyes are shot...I can't see shit far away.

like a walking cane/doesn't last etc

health doesn't last unless you take care of it and continue it.

walking cane-they need it cause of poor health, sickness, disease, imbalances etc etc

Sorry that makes little sense to me and is typical western medical thinking

if I am never active, never exercise etc my body will deteriorate-with in days!!! You have to keep it up. We are designed to move.

Masllows higher archy of needs #1, the base the need to expend and recover energy, to move and rest

Modern life calls for less and less movement-thats why we need to exercise.

doesn't last-nothing does unless you keep on taking care.

"Drugs are mostly meant to simulate the actions of our body. Degenerative diseases often have an unknown cause, so sure the drugs just cover up the symptoms, because often that's the only level of our understanding."

The understanding of Western Medicine. Others have different views and theories and great effects. Does the medical community look into this and research this?

When well respected scientists and researchers start to say different than what the medical community wants there money is taken away and they are black listed.

What docs are taught isn't the only way, thinking. There is evidence that suggests more than one thing-but 'cures' and drugs etc make money.

Yes you have to keep up taking care of your eyes just like you do al your health. Thats a pretty sad beef to have I think. Thats like saying exercise isn't good cause you have to keep it up.

OK you wait for a one time drug so you don't have to go to the gym.

pretty hard to get info when research dollars are controled. Cancer being a great example. (not even going into the retrovirus contreversy) there is lots of evidence that most cancer IS preventable. 99%of research dollars goes to cure.. Who makes money on you not getting sick. Who makes money on you getting sick. Where does the research money come from and why is it almost all going to cure?

The western medical thought process that docs are programed with is sdad in my opinion.

Second law of thermodynamics... energy tends toward disorder. Aging catches up with all of us. Yes, exercising does make a big difference, but your body is still going to get decrepit as you get older, no matter how much you exercise! Maybe you can keep parts of your body pretty fit, but there WILL be degenerative changes, even if you can take some steps to lessen them - regenerative abilities decreasing, reflexes not what they used to be, getting laxer skin, etc.

The reason I used the cane as an example was to illustrate that not all measures are necessarily only covering up symptoms - some are palliative, and provide a functional cure. Yes, maybe the guy with scoliosis could have prevented his back problems with whatever health regime, I don't know. What about the guy with polio in one leg. I don't know how much exercise will help. In his case, the cane is helpful. Perhaps you will say that there are herbal and exercise cures to any known disease state known to man. It seems idealistic to me. Is this your contention?

I don't know why you polarize everything to Western thinking vs. alternative. Is there an alternative cure to myasthenia gravis? Like I said before, I agree that obviously the pharmaceutical industry profits from people constantly using drugs to cure things that maybe could be treated another way, or for treating things that the drug doesn't treat. And this same industry does alienate and marginalize researchers that report problems with drugs. And alternative ways of thinking are always marginalized by definition when they are the minority. There is no need to futher elaborate on the fact that health care providers profit when you get sick. I agree that one ounce of prevention is worth one ton of treatment. I think the government does spend some money in prevention programs (e.g. kids wearing bicycle helmets, giving out fines for driving without a seatbelt, charges for driving drunk, and dare I say it? Ken Hayashi banning hard hitting- we should start a topic on this one). I think the medical education system is also supposed to be changing to advocate prevention, but how are they supposed to administer this? There are so many problems with this. First, bias from the old school system of medicine against prevention. Apathetic profs. Students and then doctors who don't care - human greed - they aren't getting paid to give advice. Greed isn't unique to doctors. And really, what patients would come to a doctor to get preventative advice. And like I said before, who listens to advice when you're not in pain and you feel healthy? Although there are elements in the whole health care complex that stand to benefit from you being sick, I don't think you can lump this together with medical knowledge and say everyone in the system just wants to see things through a filter that provides a drug cure only. Sure there are things that doctors don't accept that actually are valid. And there are things that doctors believe in that are crap. But are the only good researchers the ones that find alternative explanations? Are alternative explanations always correct? Who is the "medical community" anyways? I think the barriers of what you perceive as "western" vs "alternative" thinking are starting to be broken down and blurred. This is tedious and difficult to discuss because the whole points of arguments hinge on labels - i.e. who is the majority, what is medicine, who are doctors, what is accepted, what is not; what particular treatments are being discussed.

Getting back to Bates method. If I have a bacterial infection, personally I'm going to take antibiotics (Yes, these drugs have side effects and everyone taking antibiotics is going select hardy superbacteria, and who knows, maybe there is an alternative cure to bacterial infections, and yes the body does often have the ability to deal with infections on its own). The Bates method would be like me draining the pus out of an infected wound every day and saying that this 'exercise' is a cure.
Let's keep this discussion solely to the Bates method.
And we should define what this method is. As I understand it, it consists solely of palming your cornea through you closed lids in an attempt to reshape it. Do you concur?
It is not preventative, because it doesn't prevent a disease. You are momentarily flattening a cornea whose natural shape is otherwise, and by natural I mean the shape it will revert to within 24h. I don't think this is analogous to exercise. It is a functional cure, just like glasses. But it is identical to wearing a contact lens overnight that will do the same thing. Maybe the Bates method is cheaper, but then again, I'd want to compare the effectivity. I don't think there is anything wrong with using objective measures (e.g. reading an eye chart before palming, after palming, vs. after ortho K). Note I'm not even advocating ortho K over glasses as there is the associated risk of eye infections.

Again, I agree that exercises can be helpful in some cases, particularly the accomodative problems, and in some strabismus-related problems too. Exercise is good.
But, there are some anatomical assertions I make, and I think these particular anatomical assertions are pretty solid. The eye has been dissected and it can be studied in living humans pretty easily.
I assert that the refractive power of the eye is mostly due to the refractive power of the intraocular lens, whose power can change with the accomodation mechanism of the parasympathetic nervous system. It is also due to the cornea in a large, but lesser extent. The cornea cannot change its power in moments, like lens can. Pressure and hydration and disease states can affect the cornea's structure and composition and thus affect its refractive power. The shape of the cornea can be mapped very easily with a topographer. Do you disagree with any of these assertions?

My beef is with the Bates method alone, and not with other eye exercises or exercising or preventative and health maintenance measures in general.
Yes, the Bates method does change the way you see, in a limited number of cases. But it is momentary and does not produce a change of any permanence whatsoever.
Who benefits from the Bates method? People who are myopes (nearsighted), and specifically myopes whose myopia is due to their corneas being too steeply shaped and thus having a greater refractive power and focusing things in front of the cornea. By flattening out the cornea, it makes light focus in the right place. Astigmatics would also be helped, for the same reasons. The flattening would have to be in a precise prolate ellipse (or let's just say "spherical" shape for simplicity's sake) to claim that the Bates method did precisely what the glasses did. Many, if not most of North American and Asian individuals with a refractive problem are myopes with steep corneas. So perhaps this method will help many people. Now, on the con side... how accurate is this reshaping - that is, how close to 20/20 does it actually get you with the crude method of palming? How many hours does the effect last for? Are there any side effects of daily applying maybe significant pressure to your eyes? For example, there are some debatable assertions that keratoconus is associated with eye-rubbing.
The method will probably not work for myopes who are myopic due to long eyes, or due to too much power in their intraocular lens. It certainly will not work for hyperopes (far-sighted). Thus, the Bates method is not a universal way to throw your glasses away forever, and is arguably quite impractical.

I don't know if you are still advocating any other kinds of eye balancing exercises to get rid of astigmatism, but I've already set out the arguments of the extraocular muscles role in eye movement and balance vs. their ability to deform the eye and especially the cornea. I think these assertions are also pretty solid based on anatomical knowledge from dissection and surgery - we can see where the muscles are attached and see what actions they perform on the eyeball.

There are exceptions for ever rule.

Basically all i think is that putting time and energy into health has great returns and more often than not going to your doc will do nothing for your health, except possibly to make it worse.

Agreed

I e-mailed this to one of my friends who is a consultant eye surgeon at Liverpool Royal. He showed it to his colleagues and their collective opinion is that it wont work.

Well, it's certainly not a western medicine mentality to use conditioning to cure something, even though conditioning is usually what causes many illnesses or bodily disfunction to begin with.

I don't think the above ideas would cure anything, but I definitely think they help.

I have a question...

If using a computer over time can make your eyes worse, that is a form of conditioning, right? You're conditioning the eyes to focus on one short, fixed distance for many hours without blinking very often.

If that form of conditioning has that effect on the eyes, why couldn't an opposite form of conditioning also help improve the eyes?

Well eyes are designed for more long range stuff-think of our ansestors and how much and what distance they looked at.

The book talks about thinks you can do while on line to help limit the stress of looking at a screan.

This is an accomodative problem again. Not blinking for a long time will just dry your eyes out, but that's not a major problem, just uncomfortable.
When your eyes are looking in the distance, the accomodative mechanism is relaxed. When you focus up close, you have to exert accomodation, something you are no longer able to do as you get older (start noticing this in your mid 40s... called presbyopia, which is why you get reading glasses... see my comments above). When you keep staring at the computer, the accomodation gets kind of locked, so when you look in the distance, it looks blurry coz you have to give it a few moments to relax again. When this becomes a more chronic problem it's called accomodative insufficiency (AI).
Taking breaks while at the computer, to look around and to different distances, particularly in the distance, will help prevent this from happening. This is basically the type of exercises that are prescribed to deal with AI. So yeah, this is kind of conditioning, but it's not like you can actually correct your refractive error by doing this. Only sight problems that are related to accomodation. Most people in western civilization are nearsighted, which means the eye has too much power and is focusing light in front of your retina. But the excess power is not due to overfocusing, it's due to the curvature of the cornea (clear part of your eye), and it's shape can't be permanently changed with any exercises... which is basically the discussion we've been having above.

Why can I focus so much better sometimes than other times. When I do some exercises for a couple days and if I relax my eyes can sometimes focus better than others.

Sometimes I feel comfortable driving without glasses and other times I won't and will wear.

If its not changeable how come it changes?

Also the system that you are trained in make big money...BIG money from peple with eye problems. I respect your education but I don't fully trust your source.

Studies are studies and facts are often interpritable.

I read a good study in the paper the other day saying that pesticides don't get into our food that much. But it was done by the pesticide companies. I am not going to trust that as much as a more nuetral source saying the same thing.

Quite frankly I'm more interested in the source of info than the info itself.

Your schooling is controled by those who maker HUGE coin from giving people glasses. Do you think they are going to start teaching that there are other ways and loose buisness?

Am I saying your wrong? No, but I trust your source less than someone who will benifit from me getting healthier.

Learning from someone who makes money from my sickness and poor eyesite etc is a little scary to me. Learning from someone that will make money from giving me health seems to make a little more sense.

But hey maybe I'm just wako. Maybe I should start popping pills and eating hospital food.

What I've been trying to say through my whole thread, but probably didn't make clear, is that I wish to make the distinction between refractive error and accomodative problems. Both exist, but refractive error is only "treatable" with glasses/contact lenses or else surgically with laser surgery, or temporarily with ortho-K contact lenses (or perhaps crudely with the Bates method... don't know how well this works and the duration of the effect... seems pretty useless to me). Unfortunately, most (?) of our sight problems are due to refractive error. This is indeed where the health care industry makes money... providing a solution to a problem, just like most businesses.

Accomodative problems, such as accomodative infacility, on the other hand, should be treated with exercises, where you are training your nervous system to jump between focusing and relaxing, so you can see at different distances clearly. Glasses won't help here (they can be used like a crutch in some cases). Fatigue affects your nerves and thus accomodative system. That's why you can focus better after resting. I suspect you have a plus (versus minus) prescription if you only need your glasses sometimes. People with plus need a bit more power to help them focus, whereas those with a minus prescription have too much power. If you can train your accomodative system to overcome the insufficiency, do it. I'm just saying those with a minus can't really train to relax their accomodation to less than zero... so a person with a minus prescription could only benefit from training if they are having accomodative spasms.
But when you get older, your accomodation gets weaker and you need reading glasses to give you moe focusing ability (unless you already have too much power). This is basically the reason you can't focus on your finger if it's RIGHT in front of your eye.
Thus, the most variable part of your vision is the lens inside your eye and the nervous system controlling it. The front of your eye (cornea) does change over time, but does not have the quick and large fluctuations of the intraocular lens.


As for studies, yep I agree that a lot of them are corrupt, but I'm saying that some facts are pretty established from anatomy... see my posts above. Denying this would be akin to claiming that the fact that our hearts pump blood is a conspiracy by drug companies selling blood pressure medication and cardiologists that do bypass surgery. But sure, we can doubt everything until we have seen it.
Sources... anatomists from the last 200 years (who didn't sell glasses). I'm sure there's plenty of stuff on PUBMED. I believe the neutralization of refractive error was attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, where he put his face in a bowl of water and was able to see clearly? Not sure about this... I don't like history much, for the same reasons about difficulty in tracking truth, especially of events from the past that a multitude of people did not observe.
While the educational system does indirectly benefit from the industry's existence in that they get students to enroll and pay tuition because they want to get a career, they do not directly benefit. Often they try to set higher standards than the industry would prefer to adher to. For example, Harvard doesn't really benefit from you being sick that directly... Pfizer benefits a lot more. Also a lot of quacks who claim to provide innovative "non-medical" cures benefit - e.g. dubiously beneficial supplements' companies.



To summarize,
1. the eye has two major parts controlling focussing power, the cornea (can naturally change slowly over time, its error is treated with surgery or glasses/contacts) and the intraocular lens (changes power in moments, allowing us to focus... problems with this are in many cases better treated with exercises; glasses needed in some cases). I chose to believe this because there aren't any alternative explanations offered, and it has been shown anatomically, and this is readily tested.
2. I agree that many studies are garbage and you have to look at the methodology, the aims and interpretation of the people conducting the study. On the other hand, I trust those with "esoteric" knowledge even less.

facts are pretty established-according to what eye docs are taught by the people who run the eye buisness. The training is one dimentional.

I'm saying maybe there is stuff eye docs weren't taught or were taught a certain way. Just like docs in general are.

How much have you improved your vison?

I deffinatly think that over all it is better. I have not been very consistant on doing the exercises but I do see improvements and feel less strain.

Anyone know anyone who has had improved vission from glasses or contacts?

Eye docs are taught stuff that was established by anatomists and scientists during the last 200 years. Not from the evil-businessman textbook of science. Do you have any alternate explanations of the eye? You haven't provided any, and I have seen nothing else. Go get a cow eye. You will see that the anatomical parts in it are as I have described.
You have not detailed any of the alternatives to glasses or their mechanisms.
What makes Paul Chek the expert on the science of the human body? Is he not selling his courses for profit?

Would be nice if you had some numerical results of your progress with the exercises, and if you explained what they were. How are they different from "one-dimensional" exercises?

Anyone who has had improved visin from glasses? Well, it's much better when the glasses are on, right? Long-term? I'm sure you can find someone who had amblyopia (sometimes called a "lazy" eye, which is often mixed up with strabismus) treated with patching and wearing glasses. Wiht contacts? Ortho-k.

Even if eye docs were taught by people who ran the eye business, shouldn't the people who know about eyes naturally be the people who run the business? But actually the profs at the schools are not successful businessmen, that's why they become teachers. The universities are not run by business.
Ophthalmologists make no profit from glasses or contacts. Yet they do not disagree on their usefullness. They would be the ones who would actually make money on having alternatives. But I don't see any.

Chek, Colgan, Holly, King.. I think those who have worked with them can attest to results.

I'm not sure why school studies are seen as more accurate than other forms.

Dr. Colgan has written texts for universities and has taught in medical school but more important to me is that he walks the talk and is more fit and healthier than most people half his age, as are Chek and King.

You don't have to take their courses where in school you have to learn what you are given.

If I think back to my docs and look at their health... One of my docs is starting to change his views on 'alternative' med as he is sick and is looking to healing.

Another doc, excellent guy and friends of some of my relatives back in England..well he is not aging well at all.

I look at people that talk about health and who are healthy and who make people healthier.

Don't know many people who docs have made healthier. They sometimes help cover up symtoms but I don't know many people who's health has improved cause of docs.

I would guess most of us think that nutrition and exercise (life styles) are a large part of health, disease prevention etc

How many hours/days do docs study this in general? How many docs have you seen in great health? How many docs have made you healthier?

No I don't know alot and never claimed to. But I'm glad I'm loooking at my source and choicing who I study with.

-just like history-depending on your source you'll get different info on same event.

I believe in looking at the source and not just buying what is fed to me.

Bottom line-results...

I'm just trying to suggest there might be more than one route

Docs get their info from someone too... is it the only view out there? Is it the best? Could it be biased or altered? Western med views things a certain way.. I think their are other views worth looking at.

So far doing so has made my life better.

I do not agree with everything I have learned. Things that don't make sense I try to look into more.

Researcher Brad King is basically against juicing
Chek says it can be a good way of getting nutrients (if fresh)

Kings argument is the amounts of sugar you'll get, sans fiber etc This makes sense to me. Over all I like Cheks stuff best so far but untill I learn more or know better Kings thought make alot of sense.

Colgan and Chek recommend different sources of water as well.

The thing is they are all very healthy and learning their stuff has helped me and friends and family improve health.

The areas of disagreement (or maybe I'm just not understanding it properly) are areas that I want to learn more about and deside what I think is best.

But I believe that they all are promoting and leading towards health.

Chek and Colgan have some slightly different ideas on core as well..

I will keep looking and if I find what I think is better I'll look into that more and the more I study, hopefully the better my understanding and choices are in what is 'better' or at least better for me.

But I'll generally look to someone whos buisness will hurt from poor health or lack of functional improvement. Some one with a track record and with a rep that they don't want to loose. Also someone who IS healthy.

I think school studies are seen as more accurate because they are supposedly held under more scrutinity from a large body of peers and researchers in that field, and when teaching it, it will also come across many people, and thus there will be more opportunities for it to be challenged, as you are doing.

I don't disagree with you that docs are usually in crappy health. I think some of that is due to the rigors of med school and lifestyle they picked up to adapt. Just like nurses, who work crazy shifts... most of them, I'd generalize, tend to be fat. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of specialists who are young looking and in great shape and have cool personalities... I think these people have pretty high IQs and didn't have to struggle through med school, unlike the nerds who killed themselves doing it.

I'd also add that not all people take their own advice, which is another reason they might be in bad shape, not because their knowledge was bad. But yeah, I don't really know much about nutrition, or what the formal study of a nutritionist entails (I believe they are not medical doctors).

Anyway, could you describe some these exercises? Half of the stuff you mentioned in those pasted articles is taught in school. So where do you draw the line between school and alternative learning? I don't think there is a distinct separation.

My main contention was that palming cannot permanently change your vision, and that astigmatism is not caused by muscle imbalances. I think both of these could be tested very easily by yourself.
1) Measure you acuity on a chart on several occasions (different times of the day, and also on different days) while doing no exercises, for like a week. Then measure your acuity on a chart while doing the exercises. Measure again a few days after ceasing to do them. Other than for the confounding variable of you memorizing the letters, which you could get around if you could get different charts or have a system where you could change the letters, I believe you will not find a difference a few days after stopping the palming.
2) Same thing with your astigmatism. Get someone to refract you a few times before and after muscle exercises. I doubt there will be any change in your refraction. You can also test this by tilting your head in different positions, but make sure you tilt the chart along with your head, so you're not looking at the chart at orientations where the effect of the astigmatism is minimized. If it was the muscle balance that caused astigmatism, in different head positions the astigmatism should be changed and thus so should your acuity.

"I think school studies are seen as more accurate because they are supposedly held under more scrutinity from a large body of peers and researchers in that field, and when teaching it, it will also come across many people, and thus there will be more opportunities for it to be challenged, as you are doing."

supposedly is right-some of those large bodies I'm sure have financial interests too

-I draw the line with the source and some logic and does it actually work :)

I'm sure there is tons of good stuff in school. There are some courses I would like to take and would take in a university etc

That's why I said supposedly. Therefore I give a peer-reviewed journal article more credibility than joe-blow's snake oil miracle cure secrets book for only $19.95.
I'm still curious to hear specifics about the exercises and how they make sense, in regards to cases (1) and (2) above, and also "sunning with eyes closed". While your trusted sources may have some very useful contributions in nutrition and other fields, I think they're plain wrong in these eye-related cases.
The stuff done by Lederer in the article are normal binocular vision stuff done by a few people (few because of its time-consuming and poorly financially-rewarding nature).
The stuff suggested by Bates (MD) is bogus. His stuff is from 1919! I think that the collective body of work of eye doctors in the 86 years since then may deserve a bit more credibility? There are much more precise techniques for measuring and experimenting with the eye and optical systems, such as better lens manufacturing, lasers, MRI, better controlled studies.
3)Astigmatism is not caused by posture or head tilting. Some kids have head tilts just by habit. Others, that have eye muscle problems that cause diplopia in straight-ahead position will tilt their head to relieve the diplopia, but this has nothing to do with astigmatism. Astigmatism is cause by defects in the corneal shape or the intraocular lens. Eye length also contributes to refractive error.
4) Palming flattens out the cornea momentarily at best and is not a permanent cure, and doubtfully even effective.
5) I don't see any use of sunning. How does this help? Sure illumination is useful for people who have trouble seeing, but exposure to excessive amounts of sunlight also carries increased exposure to UV, which causes damage, just like it does to the rest of your skin. It can cause cataracts and pterygium. This has been documented in studies of communities where there were people who worked on the water (which reflects sunlight) a lot, like fishermen.

The book I read was written by eye docs not Chek. A Chek practitioner came across it. Above is her experiances.

I'd have to get the book to give you specifics as i don't think I could explain them well. Or better yet check it out. :)

I think it makes perfect sense that a tilted head could change the shape of an eye. Your training says other wise.. Thats cool.

Some of the exercises are to do with blood flow and getting nutrients to the eye and eye area. From my understanding of the body this makes sense also.

"Some kids have head tilts just by habit" -so because its habit its not bad posture?? I'm a little lost in that comment.

I giving some info out there (I posted some articles) of another view point. I am no expert. Take a look for yourself with an open mind. Your training will teach you one way. Maybe its all right maybe some isn't. You don't know till you question.

Did you read the articles?

"The last part of improved visual function to appear was depth perception. More than 20 therapy sessions were required before I could see depth. For most of my therapy I did not know what the therapists were talking about when they asked if an image was "floating." When I finally saw it, I was amazed. The world looks great in 3D! Depth perception is not automatic when there is binocular vision. It is a more advanced neurological function. I still do not always see depth immediately, but now I know how."

"My therapy is finished for now. At my final check up I learned that because my visual system is in a delicate stage of balance now and might be pushed into a dysfunctional pattern by doing too much, Dr. Lederer decided that therapy should stop for a while. He explained that future goals are to maintain what I have achieved and to always assure that any future gains should be considered and explored as long as they support function. I will see him again in six months. Now that my vision has improved, I am ready to continue making improvements in other systems that are also involved with my dysfunction. With the vision door open, the rest of the Totem Pole that constitutes the mind and body is also open. Other work I am using includes, but is not limited to, atlas adjustments, neuromuscular therapy, cranial sacral therapy, chakra balance, acupuncture, qi gong, and, of course, functional exercise."

taken from her article after 1 year of doing..

she was a patient..

Nop, I only read the articles insofar as what you posted.
Yea, I agree with the blood flow stuff and as I said above, and all the 3D/binocular vision stuff that Lederer was doing.
"Head tilts just by habit"- I meant that not every kid who has a tilted head posture has an eye problem. Why does it make sense that a tilted head posture would change the shape of the eye? The sclera (white part of the eye), where the muscles are attached is very rigid to protect the contents of the eye. If you had all sorts of deformation taking place every time you change the position of your eye, I think you would have more incidences of things like retinal detachments. Most importantly, everyone's vision would change when they tilted their head, which is not true.

If memory serves me it takes about 1 gram of pressure to move a tooth. Look at roots going through rocks.

Look how the spine gets moved by posture and habit and the pull of the muscles. Why is the eye so much stronger?

Its not everytime its over a period.

If you don't think posture changes muscle and bone just look around, especially as people get older.

Not that the muscle force of the extraocular muscles couldn't deform the eye, but rather I'm saying it doesn't because of their insertion and mode of action... it'd be like saying that if you'd constantly flex your bicep you'd deform the bones in your forearm. Plus, the changes you're describing supposedly get noticably better within a few weeks of exercise, so it doesn't occur that slowly then.
Anyway, let the results speak for themselves. Would be cool if you could get a baseline refraction and then one after a few months of exercise, and let us know what the numbers were.

OK grabbed the book..

My idea was to post an article I thought interesting.

mt411-you obviously know alot more about eyes than myself. However I wonder if that info could be missing some view points in terms of what you are taught.

A quink mention on muscles.



extraocular muscles are one part of it all-slow to change quick to start to change back-I think that makes sense. Posture is slow to change but stretching and corrective exercise can have small improvements very quickly.

anyway How do eyes focus? Is it not largely to do with the ciliary muscles?

then shouldn't training these muscles make some reasonable sense in improving focus?

Now you ask on whos giving info-I only mentioned Chek as the site I first came across this was his site.

The author of the article was a patient-though its obvious she has done some research to write the article.

My main info comes from one of the books she used as a refferance.

The authors are

-Professor Merrill J. Allen
Graduate of Ohio State University and Professor Emeritus of Optometry at Indiana University. As recipient of 21 professional honors including the American Optometric Association's Apollo Award and the British Optical Association's Research Medal, Professor Allen is one of the most highly credentialed optomotrists in the Untited States.

-Dr. Steven M. Beresford
Graduate of Leicester University (UK) and President of the American Vision Institute. In addition to vision research, Dr. Beresford is an authority on nuclear chemistry and has published his work in many scientific journals

-Dr. David W. Muris
Graduate of Southern California College of Optometry and Director of Sacramento VisionCare Optometric Center. Dr. Muris is former President of the Sacramento Couty Health Plan and Regional Chairman of the Optometric Extension Program.

-Professor Francis A. Young
Graduate of Ohio State University and Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Washington State University. As a recipient of 11 professional honors, including the American Optometric Association's Apollo Award, Professor Young is one of the world's leading autorities on myopia.


Now I think thats enough cause to at least look at what they have to say..

jmo

ok I'll drop a couple things from the book that I think makes it worth a look into.

so the rest of this will probably be from

"improve Your Vision Without Glasses or Contact Lenses"
-Beresford, Muris, Allen, Young

They say that almost everyone is born with healthy eyes and less than 2 percent of children have deformed eye balls.

Professor Young in '68 found that

remember most modern medical thinking is that its largely all genetic so sit on your ass take it and come to us for 'cures'

The school of eye docs generally believe the same, no? We can't do anything about it so wear these...

anyway Young/eskimos

-'Eskimos families in process of of being assimilated into the American mainstream.' Great place to do studies with the change in eye use etc Parents illiterate-kids first generation in school

130 parents
128 had excellent distance vision and only 2 had myopia

1 parent had O.25D and the other had 1.50D

the one with the 1.5D the tribal record keeper (interesting?)

Now more than 60% of the kids showed "significant amounts of myopia'.

So its obviously not inherited..

genetic theory and problems with (according to the authors of course-NOT me)

1-if poor vision genetic-shouldn't change after become an adult as shape of eyeballs would be determined by shape of eye socket

adults just keep casting with stronger and stronger lenses (talks about how it makes worse)

2-since computers millions of adults with normal healthy eyes start to develop myopia over the age of 30-after point body stops growing

3-statistcs say other wise
1950-US gov study myopia in US-approx 15% of total population have incidence of myopia
about same looking at reports back to '20s
by 1980-about 40% had incidence of myopia

(1955-in walks Mr TV)


---
"The worst thing you can do for myopia is to treat it with 'corrective' lenses..."
Prof Young

"Full correction for distance vision causes the myope to produce extra accommodation when viewing close objects with their lenses on. Since excessive accommodation is impolicated in the etiology of myopia, the eye may become more myopic when fully corrected"
-J Angle and D. A. Wissman, Soc. Sci. Med., 14A 473-479, 1980

"The use of compensatory lenses to treat or nuetralize the symptoms does not correct or cure the problem. The current education and training of eye care practitioners discourages preventative and remidial treatment"
-R. L. Gottlieb, J. Optom. Vis. Dev., 13(1): 3-27, 1982

etc etc

there's too much info, quite bad for your eyes raeding it on the computer screen...
Mark, you should make a book with all the info you know

"The truth is that no clinical studies have ever demonstrated the longterm safety of effectiveness of 'corrective lenses. To put it bluntly, the traditional method of prescribing these products is an untested and unproven form of treatment."
-from the book

"During next few decades, (continuing on from talking about stuff from 1904) intense legal conflicts took place in every state as the American Optometric Association battled the American Medical Association over treatment procedures and financial territory. These conflicts continue to the present day through academic journals, advertising campaigns, legislation, and the courts, as large numbers of eye doctors fight each other for patients and health care dollars"
-from book

mt411-your knowlage is way more indepth than mine but I wonder about what you've been taught and not taught etc

looks like a strong enough case to take a look to me.

TEEJ-I don't know it all thats for sure... learning and looking and sharing :)

lol on the reading it all-

Do I 'know' what I'm sharing is right? No (sure adds up to me though and I don't know anyone who has improved their vision with glasses etc-almost everyone I know gets stronger and stronger prescriptions, myself included)

But I strongly believe that we cannot blindly follow our docs etc or trust our health and well being blindly to modern excepted theories (that aren't working). I think we have to be responsible for our own health and stop looking for the easy pill IF we want health and happiness.

Ok so we've taken the discussion to myopia now. Yes, a very debatable subject. I agree that near work does seem to be a stimulus to develop myopia. Mind you, this is in children, whose eyes are still growing. This is the process of emmetropization. In a population (you'll recall I mentioned in the beginning of this thread that the North American population is nearsighted, and this is thought to be the reason) that didn't overly concentrate on near work, like the eskimos you mentioned, kids are born with non-perfect vision, and the eye grows with age to an emmetropic (no refractive error) state. So the thought is that if the error is corrected with the lenses, then there is no stimulus left to cause growth for correction. There have also been studies with children giving them bifocals so they won't have the same correction when doing near work. There was a measly difference of about 2% versus kids who didn't wear the bifocals. Most people think it's both environmental and genetic. When one parent or both parents are myopic, the kids are more likely to be myopic. And myopia has also been correlated with education (doing a lot of near work studying). Chinese eye doctors are in the habit of routinely undercorrecting the kids or else giving them drops to freeze their accomodation and not allow them to focus. Not sure about the success rates, but I'm thinking they're probably pretty abysmal.
Personally I would think the incidence of myopia after age 30 is low, so yeah that would of been an argument against the theory of genetics. I still am not convinced that there is a high incidence.
So is the converse that if it's not genetic, then it's the glasses that cause myopia? It's the near work, not the glasses. Like I said, the glasses are a crutch. Well, what are you going to do if you need to do a lot of reading and you're now myopic? I would recommend taking a lot of breaks to look at different distances, but this isn't always practical. Glasses will help people with refractive errors see; no one claimed it's a cure. Just like a crutch helps you to walk - it doesn't heal your broken leg.
But that argument about it not being genetic because the eye socket should determine eye length if it were genetic seems bogus to me. In most cases, refractive error is not due to changes in the length of the eye, it's due to the curvature of the cornea or the power of the intraocular lens. Even then, the length of the eye could still grow forward - I'm sure you've seen people with big eyes versus those with deep inset eyes.

By the way, yes, the ciliary muscles are those responsible for focussing/accomodation, but they are inside the eye and they're innervated by the parasympathetic nervous system (not the voluntary nervous system). But you can do exercises to help with this... these are the focussing from far to near that we discussed before, and that I also agree with.
Anyway, that's a whole different discussion. I'm pretty sure that none of those guys you've listed above would claim that astigmatism is caused by extraocular muscle imbalance. I would be interested to know if any of those guys made that claim specifically.

Like I said, let the results speak for themselves. Let us know your personal results. What is prescription? Are you hyperopic or myopic? How much astigmatism?

"The truth is that no clinical studies have ever demonstrated the longterm safety of effectiveness of 'corrective lenses. To put it bluntly, the traditional method of prescribing these products is an untested and unproven form of treatment."


Effectiveness and safety being defines as what?
Glasses are pretty effective in making you see, methinks. Safe being as not causing progression of the refractive error... well in that case they're not safe. But I'm sure treatments other than glasses would score worse in these same categories.

But back to my previous argument: ophthalmologists - they make $0 from glasses. Many of them do not even bother with refraction and prescribing. But I'm sure you'd find it very difficult indeed to find any ophthalmologist that says glasses are ineffective or dangerous, or that claim astigmatism is caused by muscle imbalance or that palming will cure it.

"I agree that near work does seem to be a stimulus to develop myopia. Mind you, this is in children, whose eyes are still growing"

I think I mentioned and it clearly talks about adults developing this AFTER they have stopped growing.

Yes, I would look at results from people who learn and do take care of their eyes.

Can you give me any positive results on improved vision with the millions who wear glasses?

The someone makes huge dollars of glasses. Would you like to place a wager that its persons/groups in the eye industry or out?

If you are really interested why not check it out yourself. I'm no expert and with your training you can talk circles around me for the most part.

But can you look at it with and 'empty cup'. Does it make no sense to you that what is taught is influenced by different groups and people and MONEY?

So eyes focus with muscles?? so why does it not make sense that you work on learning to focus better?

Eye industry=?
Are opticals and opticians part of the eye industry? They are the ones making by far the most money on glasses and some on contacts (Walmart has taken a huge market share of contacts now). Yet they have no knowledge of the eye. So are they part of the industry? I'd say not.

Ophthalmologists... the most training/widest scope of practice on eyes, yet 99.9% have nothing to do with making glasses. Get most of their $$ from surgery and exams.
Optometrists... half and half.

So it depends on who you include in the eye industry. Is anyone who makes money on eye-related things part of the eye industry? Then the statement would basically just be circular.

Who decides and who is in charge of what is taught?

If there is no trace to the money there I would be extreamly surprised.

All industries are the same.

Thats like saying docs don't make money from the prescription drugs they push. But there is HUGE money from the prescriptions they write out. HUGE dollars.

I believe that money has an effect on what is taught etc

I'm quite sure the contact lens and lens manufacturers and frame suppliers/manufacturers do not decide on the curriculum and training of ophthalmologists, nor do I think they have any significant contributions to the medical schools. I'd say at most maybe there's a bit of money from manufacturers of surgical equipment and prosthetics, but even with that I'm sure they would not be able to make any sort of demands on the curriculum. Ditto for optometry... they do make some contributions with supplies of contact lenses, but no one brand is promoted over another, and again, the equipment suppliers that make examination equipment make probably heftier contributions, but really, the curriculum is more dictated by whatever prof teaches the subject, and most of that is out of one or two textbooks. Yes, some of the textbook stuff is based on research, and we go back to our original discussion on how much effect do these companies have on research (I'm quite sure that the results of optics research isn't dictated by some collective research grant from manufacturers - there are plenty of other kinds of sources for funding, and there would be fame and money for researchers/practitioners who could show alternatives to optical correction). But a lot of the material is based on regular clinical experiences of doctors. The universities' power structure is not distributed in such a narrow manner or to people who would have much to gain from "bribes". It's like cops here... they get paid like 65k. It wouldn't be worth it to them in any manner to take like a $15 bribe to not issue you a ticket, or $200 to let a drug dealer go. The curriculum is not decided by one person and I think someone would always have something to gain by exposing others. It's an academic arena, not a business one.

As for GPs, yeah they used to get a lot of perks from drug companies to induce them to push one brand over another when prescribing, but I think this was just to induce them to use their brand, not based on volume. I'm not sure how these arrangements worked, but I do know there was a scandal and I think maybe some legal repercussions (conflict of interest type). But this was basically stuff like lunches, gifts, trips. And that was mostly GPs. The medical school and surgical community is not financially dependent on drug and other manufacturers for their livelihood, they generate their income from the government, just by doing the exams and surgery for most of their earnings, and the schools generate it from tuition, government, and some industry stuff, but I think they're happy to just be able to say that they're associated with a particular study. At most, doctors will give one brand preference over another - just bribes and politics, as in any other business. I think very few doctors, if any, benefit in a BIG way from bribes, and certainly this isn't a widespread infiltration.

Anyway, in the eye care field, ophthalmologists don't really deal with glasses or contacts, and they would not lose anything by saying that glasses are useless. Fact is, they work, and that's why they're around. I'll agree that sometimes they are erroneously prescribed, but that's a case of lazy or bad doctors, not a systematic deception to foist spectacles on the unsuspecting population. And again, the opticians, lens and frame manufacturers, who have the most to gain from their sale, have no access to the medical and optometric educational system.

crutches work too. doesn't mean they correct a single thing.

I don't dought that money plays a factor in buisness. You just have to look in the right place a follow it.

example-food pyramid combination of thousands of scientists and docs wanted with what food lobbies wanted.

Drug companies trying to say vits/min are dangerous so they can market and sell. Guess who is trying to buy up the vit/min companies.

If you don't think money and influence and lobbies are a factor I personally think your missing something that is every where.

Ok, glasses=prosthetic then. Just as exercising won't make a stump grow back a limb, neither will exercises cure a truly and solely refractive error.
Lobbies and the food industry are complex webs where politicians and corporations are involved. Obviously money is involved in these cases.
But like I said, I don't see where corporations and money factor in on ophthalmologists' opinions. These are not publicly traded stocks. There are no regulations and quotas that are constantly being changed every quarter. There are no banks or hostile takeovers. Ophthalmologists make their money from exams and surgery, not from selling glasses. Maybe you might argue that there is influence from pharmaceuticals' money on their schools. I doubt this, as the doctor business is quite lucrative without it. University administrators make lots of money without bribes, and would be risking it - not worth it. Regardless, the point being discussed is that people who manufacture glasses are somehow influencing the medical educational system and professional practice and opinion. You can argue that some optometrists sell glasses, so they might be influenced (although there is nothing to show that their educational system has money from that industry somehow changing the curriculum). But ophthalmologists make no money from that industry; there is no money trail. They do surgery and they do exams. The government pays them lots of money to do this. They pay their school to teach them these skills. The school gets money from tuition and from the government. The people who work for the university get a good salary and prestige, and many are also ophthalmologists, so they are making money already. Where is the money trail? So if they are not receiving pay-off money from the glasses and contact lens manufacturers for the entire profession to be quiet, why should they not point out the dangers of glasses? I'm sure if some fringe authors can find dangers from the use of glasses, then so could ophthalmologists, through their collective examination of millions of patients every year. Yet this has not been the case.

point is there are many eye problems.. your refferance is like saying a missing eye.

you basically agree that it can help, no?

Glasses can help? Sure... I'm actually saying that other than in an early developing eye, there is no evidence that glasses are harmful, and that there is no evidence that the eyeglasses industry has any influence on the medical/optometric community.

Is there a single piece of evidance that show that glasses improve vision and not simply cast it.

Use it or loose it is how the body works-not sure there is a single exception. I certainly don't think eyes are.

Glasses cast your eyes.

I think there is evidance-I'll see.

logic certainly says they'll make them worse-experiance too

In most cases, glasses are only a cast, but then nobody claimed that they are anything more than that.
Off the top of my head, the only time I can think of glasses improving vision is in children with amblyopia, in conjunction with patching. There will actually be a biological/neurological change.

Most body tissues do atrophy without use, but I don't see how having glasses on causes you not to use your eyes. The neurons at the back of your eye are receiving light in both cases, but without glasses if you have a refractive error, the light is not being focuses, so I'd say the eyes are being 'used' less if they're getting out-of-focus images, no? This is in fact what causes kids to develop amblyopia.
Refractive errors where you can use your focusing muscles to overcome it are the minority (hyperopia), and this focusing is supposed to be used to see things up close, so if you are using it to clear things up in the distance, up close will be even harder. This usually leads to headaches, fatigue, and sleepiness with prolonged close work. With refractive myopia, you can't do anything to clear your vision, so not using glasses won't make a difference.

muscles are used to focus light-glasses focus for you.

I'm not saying no one should wear or ever wear.

Saying that we use them like a crutch. Never look at strengthening and over use IMO

Most people are myopes (light is already overfocused) - focusing muscles do nothing for them (cannot 'unfocus' with them). Focusing muscles are supposed to be used for close up viewing, not the distance. Using them to clear the distance (moderate hyoperopes can) reduces the leftover ability for close up. In mild cases, this is ok, since lots still left over. But such individuals wouldn't even go in for/be prescribed eyeglasses in the first place.

The ciliary muscle is smooth muscle - I don't think it can be trained to increase contracting ability/size (this would pose anatomical problems anyway). It can be trained to increase facility in changing between contracting/relaxing. But not to increase magnitude. The magnitude actually decreases over age until it's completely lost around age 60. This is why older people need reading glasses. Older people who can see without reading glasses are myopes (light overfocused for far, but this is good for near, coz it's in focus). But these people will not have 20/20 distance vision.

focusing muscles are used for close up but nnot distance-can you explain please?

The ciliary muscle-magnitude decreases with age

the less you use it or the more you use it. Its how all muscles work

Not saying aging isn't a factor.

'éxercising' a muscle isn't all about one thing. Range, being able to relax. Many of us have muscles that never fully relax. Training with short biceps curls trains your biceps to be short.

Always looking close up and rarely using distance (which I'm guessing you are saying is done by the muscle relaxing). Why is this muscle so different?

I think every athlete out there if not every person can tell you some tight areas they have. Most will be from habitual use, posture/training etc

Why are the eyes so different?

You exercise a muscle so has a full range. So that its long and resilient. So that it can relax. As well as getting stronger, more powerful etc

So these muscles controle focus one way but not the other? Or do I miss understand? aAre there different muscles for far and close?

Talking generals here not someone with out an eye or this specific problem.

Again-what is taught (if nothing else) is one school of thought. There is rarely only ONE way.

The more I know about the body the more it makes sense.

use it and use it right or loose it or train it wrong.

train right and you can correct most things to some degree if nothing more.

wear a cast for 2 months and see what happens

wear a different prescriptions on each eye-do you think they will be the same after a year?? I would bet money on that one.

Regardless what studies are sellected or taught.

Or wear corrective on one side and nothing on the other-say 100 cases. By your logic the eye with nothing should be worse? I place a bet on that one too.

makes sense to me anyway.

Myopia. The most common refractive eye problem. Caused by light focusing in front of the retina (sensory part of the eye). The light focuses too early. This is usually caused by the front part of the eye (cornea) and/or the natural lens of the eye being too powerful compared to the length of the eye. Can also be caused by having normal power of those components but too long eye.
Glasses would have minus lenses, which decrease the power, so the light will focus a bit further back, right on the retina.
Ciliary muscle (focusing). Has the ability to contract and relax. Innervated by the parasympathetic nervous system (not voluntary system). Smooth muscle. Cannot be strengthened by causing muscle growth any more than could your intestine. When you look up close, you need more power to focus things. This is just an optical fact. Things up close need more power to be seen clearly by the eye. The ciliary muscle provides this by contracting and causing the lens in your eye to change shape, giving more power.
When you look far away, you need less power. So the muscle relaxes. This is why you don't use the ciliary muscle in the distance. At the maximum state of relaxation (i.e. the power 'added' by the muscle is zero), the case may be that the front of the eye (whose shape stays constant more or less) is providing too much power still. Or the eye is too long. So the light is still focusing in front of the retina. Now what do you do? The ciliary muscle is totally relaxed. But you have the light overfocused still. The only solution is to put on minus lenses to decrease the power/focus.
It doesn't matter whether you use glasses or not. If you don't, you just won't see clearly. Doesn't mean your refractive error will get worse. If you wear the glasses, your refractive error will still get worse. If you wear a lens on one eye and not the other, the change in refractive error over time will occur the same in both eyes, if a change will occur. In myopes, they usually get a bit more myopic in their teens and early 20s. People who don't need glasses at the distance mostly stay like that over time.

Presbyopia. Loss of the ability to focus with age. Happens to 100% of people. Average age: 43. Doesn't matter if you wear glasses or not. Doesn't matter if you are a hunter and don't read. Doesn't matter if you live in a cubicle and stare at the computer all day. Doesn't matter if you do eye exercises all day. The only thing that exercises can help you do is help the muscle change between contracting and relaxing. People who spend too much time doing one or the other (usually too much time contracting), can get trouble going into the other mode (usually relaxing). But this usually doesn't persist after they stop that intense activity. That's all those exercises can help you with. You will still lose your ability to focus in your 40s.

I didn't really go into detail about the accomodation to keep the discussion more simple, but I will coz it's relevant. The lens in your eye is attached to the ciliary muscle by little fibers called zonules. When your muscle contracts it bunches up and decreases the distance between the muscle and the lens. So the fibers can relax, which causes the lens to take a more ball-like shape, which has more power. This happens when you look at things up close.
When you look in the distance, the muscle relaxes, which causes it to get flatter and farther away from the lens, which causes tension in the fibers to increase, causing the lens to be pulled into a flatter shape, which has less power. The loss of ability to get the lens to the more ball-like configuration with more power is presbyopia. Since you can't get it to give you more power, you need glasses to do it for you. That's why you wear reading glasses.
This loss of ability may not be solely due to the muscle. It could also be due to changes in the fibers and the lens becoming more stiff with age, so you can't get it to ball up anymore even though the tension is relaxed by the muscle contracting (which decreases tension on the fibers). Whatever way you choose to explain the loss, exercising the muscle won't help you.
The only way you'll avoid reading glasses is if you are myopic and things are already overfocused for the distance, so when you have no glasses on and you're looking at something close up (which is when you need more focusing power), the focus will be right because of your myopia. But then you won't see things in the distance clear coz the myopia causes those things to be overfocused. Some people may say they see just fine in the distance too even though they're myopic. But if you test them with an acuity chart, they will not get 20/20.

Hope that clears up things more than causes confusion.

so is it not possible that the muscle isn't fully relaxed?

if you primarily use a muscle in one way it tends to get use to that place

why is this any different?

glad to learn more but what you said doesn't tell me that retraining the muscle won't help.

just because a muscle is run by the parasympathetic doesn't mean it works perfect or that it can't be changed in my opinion.

if you deliberatly look at something far or close aren't you then controling the muscle?

Wouldn't it make sense that you can learn to relax the muscle more especially after training it to look close so much?

what you say doesn't add up to not being able to retrain the muscles, if nothingmore than to a degree. Or am I missing something?

It's possible that the muscle isn't fully relaxed, but this is a minority of the cases. This usually occurs with high stress in teens (it's called accomodative spasm), but you will get fluctuating vision, not a steady refractive error.
It's not like you're constantly looking at near and never at far, and even if you were looking constantly at near, the muscle would more likely get fatigued from constantly being in a contracted state (hence 'spasm'). I don't think you'd ever get the case where you would have that muscle just locking into an exactly steady contracted state.

So I don't see what you're really REtraining, other than the facility of changing between contracting and relaxing, which I agreed is trainable. Looking constantly at close for prolonged periods makes the muscle used to being more contracted, and it's a bit harder to relax, but it's not locked into one single point of contraction - it will fluctuate somewhat.
The parasympathetic system can indeed be controlled (e.g. biofeedback), but it's not really like the voluntary system, so I don't think the paradigm of muscle training would hold true for it in exactly the same way, especially since the muscle is smooth muscle, not striated/skeletal.

In the majority of cases where glasses are worn (true myopes and presbyopes), exercises will not help. In myopes, if the muscle is fully relaxed, and you're still myopic, there's nothing you can do. In presbyopes, where the accomodative response (making the lens take on the more powerful state) is decreased, you can't do anything.
Actually even in hyperopes, where the relaxed state of the eye is such that the distance image is not in focus because the eye is underfocused like that, training won't help. You already can compensate for this by increasing your focusing (contracting the muscle), but this takes away from the additional amount that you can focus for when you need to look up close. This works in mild to moderate cases, where you have plenty additional ability for the close viewing, but not with more severe degrees where you don't have enough to overcome even the distance underfocus, and it causes headaches and similar symptoms even in milder cases. And this becomes more manifest as you lose focusing ability with age when you can't make up for the hyperopia.
And for astigmatism, which is a difference in refractive error in different planes, exercises will also do nothing, because you can't do anything to selectively change power in one plane of your vision with the accomodative response.

So training is useless for like 98% of the reasons you would wear glasses for (myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, presbyopia). I don't see an alternative to refractive correction (glasses, contacts, surgery).

Sure you can find examples of where patients had weird problems and training did help, but those problems weren't refractive to begin with (they were accomodative facility or sensory integration problems). I'm saying in 98% of the cases training is not applicable, and bringing up those 2% isn't evidence that glasses are grand money-making scheme that could be cured with eye exercise. It's not like popping diuretics to lose weight vs. exercise and a healthy diet. Back in the day people didn't need as high acuity for their lives. Now everyone wants or needs to see a lot better, so I think this is another reason more people are wearing glasses (although the increased near work is also a factor).

well we're not getting anywhere.

I'm not convinced

No you don't need to be always in one position for a muscle to get use to that range

look at hip flexors or forward head posture-mane sleep pretty flat but may develop problems from over use (and underuse) of different muscles..

its not all black and white with the body-a and b and there is much we don't know (and much we're taught or not taught)

your training says exercising the eyes doesn't work-I don't know enough to argue

you win (hopefully your patients do too)

I'm still willing to keep an open mind and look at stuff that works, even if it doesn't make sense to me (although an explanation of how it works anatomically is reassuring).
Please let us know your prescription and how that progresses with the exercises for you - I'm interested. If you believe it's working, why not also have some people you know try it and see their results (e.g. see if non-myopic presbyopes can get rid of their reading glasses, or young moderate myopes can get rid of their glasses while maintaining the same level of vision). If it works, I'm all for it.

I think very few people are motivated enough in our world of quick fixes.

I haven't been on the ball myself. But I will certainly keep you posted.

Any updates?

Haven't kept it up like I wanted so no.

I have come across more people that have done it and I've found some other methods.


My strength coach has had a few clients and knows a few people that have done it also.

Hard to find time. Priorities I guess.

Trying to find time to train is hard enough on top of work and everything else.

I spend 30-1hr a day stretching (as it all goes I'll won't have to keep it up that much).

Trying to hit the gym 6 days a week.

Teaching MT classes a couple days.

Cooking %95+ of my meals (all real food, no shakes, no packages)

Trying to study.

Trying to get back into meditation (starting some Qi Gong instruction soonm is the plan)

Eyes got left behind...

I was comfortable driving without glasses for awhile and now I'm not again. So I did see a differance.

http://www.mercola.com/2006/jul/20/_vision_improvement_observed_by_respected_scientists.htm

I have met more and more people who have experienced improved vision through 'exercise' (more properly relaxation)..

I have seen improvements my self but have yet to make it a priority and yet to be consistant..

Just read about your calling it quits in the fight game. Perhaps now we will be able to continue this experiment.


I just looked at the above link off mercola.com, and all I have to say is that, in general, this is nonsense!

The first of all, they are making a straw man argument by touting the success of binocular vision training. In fact, vision training is usually done in cases of minor strabismus, and surgery only used when the strabismus is very large and there is danger of amblyopia developing in one eye, or the strabismus is cosmetically unacceptable. Binocular training/vision training is nothing new.

Secondly, the "common medical dictum" of not gaining stereo vision after age 2 if it's not already there is suspect. If this were true, then no children with a strabismus after age 2 should be able to have stereo vision.
In fact, most children are not be operated for strabismus under age 2. I don't think it's modern medically accepted theory that children can't develop stereo vision after age 2.

Nice title: "Medically Impossible Vision Improvement Observed By Respected Scientists". Full of big important words. So there was a series of experiments, done before 1981, mind you - this is more than 25 years ago(!), which is like the dark ages in terms of measuring advancements in science. Who knows what the actual main focus of the series of experiments was, but Greg Marsh has chosen to pick out the fact that there was a "study of kittens [and also monkeys] that could not regain stereo vision after becoming cross-eyed". Now did they mean that it was observed that some of the kittens could not regain stereo vision, or that 100% of the group of kitten was unable to regain stereo vision after becoming cross-eyed. Was the stereo vision not regained while they were still cross-eyed, and thus it means that cross-eyed people don't have stereo vision, or was it meant that the kittens were made un-cross-eyed after being made cross-eyed, and they couldn't regain binocular vision that they had previously? What was defined as "stereo vision" anyway? It is very important to fully and clearly explain what was done, and what the scientists actually concluded.
How did the patient, Susan Barry, define stereo vision? She never saw it until she was in her 40s, thanks to vision therapy? Did she in fact have zero stereo vision before, or was it actually only improved?

In any case, this does not go in any way to lending credibility to the "naturopathic" refractive error remedy they go on to push.


Follow the link to this:
http://www.mercola.com/products/natural_vision_cd/index.htm

First of all, look at the website presentation. It's the typical infomercial style with bright colours, the token testimonials (just like you see in the diet commercials on TV). Since you know what's up in fighting, look at this site:

http://www.topsecrettraining.com/combat.html?gclid=CKidgYey4YkCFSJYPgodikZlLg
Notice the similarity of the colour scheme and style?
Quote: "Hell yes! Whole brain thinking, controlling "fight or flight" - believe it people! "
Notice the similarity in the way they talk? No specifics, just use general truisms to allude to the offer of a better solution, for a price of course.

So on to the content. Giving an example of an old man who can read up close without glasses. Well, did they test his vision at the distance. He is probably just nearsighted, that's all.
Love the links to the videos of the "success" stories too. The woman describes being able to read better with better lighting! No kidding! More light gives you more contrast. Turn off the light in your room and see how well you can read a book.
The other woman talks about improving her vision even though she has cataracts, and learning "how" to see. Yeah, I can learn to "see" with my eyes closed if I touch things around me with my hands too. First of all, cataracts are not a refractive error - they are opacities that form in the lens of your eye. They are not reversible. Sometimes, the formation of the cataract can lead to a change in prescription (refractive error), but this is due to the changes in the lens. Obviously, the vision will depend on the severity of the cataract, which can vary greatly!

"over 2000 copies sold at $379, for now I am able to offer it at over 60% off!)"
That's $758,000. Why discount it at 60%? Out of the kindness of his heart? Or to move more volume? Or was it actually never sold at $379 and he wants you to believe you're getting a deal?

Of course, there is the loophole, that this takes a lot of time and patience, so obviously if it doesn't work for you, it must be your fault.

Oh, and I love the disclaimer at the bottom.

"Disclaimer: Natural vision programs are educational rather than medical in their approach. This program should not be construed as medical advice. You will need to continue to work with your eye doctor for diagnosis, treatment and prescription changes. Not meant for eye conditions resulting from eye accidents or disease. Individual results vary depending upon your unique situation. And, although many students have benefited from spending time without their glasses or contact lenses, you are responsible for maintaining good judgment when it comes to driving or performing other activities that may put you or others at risk."

Why continue to work with your eye doctor, if he obviously is trying to milk you and/or doesn't know about eyes? "Individual results vary depending upon your unique situation"??? LOL... nice loophole.



Some more dubious stuff:
http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/4/eyeglass_prescriptions.htm
Just actually goes to show that medical opinion differs on treatment modality, and that glasses are not meant to cure or stop vision from getting worse.
Mercola's comment is that because "primitive cultures" don't have glasses, therefore it must be something in our lifestyle or diet that makes us need glasses. I, for one, was raised with lots of sugar and cereal consumption and almost never ate vegetables... still dislike them to this day LOL. And I don't have the slightest trace of near-sightedness. I also sat close to the TV, spent lots of time in school, reading, and now use the computer lots. But my eyes are not nearsighted in any way. Nor are my eyes getting worse. Woah!
Actually, this pattern is much more likely genetic... almost all asians tend to be myopic, if anything. Blacks (even in north america) tend to not have much of a refractive error or actually be myopic. Is this because they are a primitive race? Maybe they don't drink pop or read?


Or this one:

http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/7/kids_glasses.htm
Showing that pediatric ophthalmologists prescribe the least amount of glasses, and optometrists the most. Now is this because kids actually don't need glasses in 99% of the cases? Or could there be other explanations, such as the pediatric ophthalmologists:
a)believing that minor errors don't need to be corrected (i.e. have glasses worn for), and not prescribing them
b)seeing a population of children who have a disease that is the doctor's speciality, and what the doctor wants to spend their time treating
c)don't spend their time prescribing glasses, because by the time the kids are referred to them, the person who referred them (most likely the optometrist) has already prescribed the glasses?

Hmmm. When you start looking for other explanations to statistics, you can easily see how figures can be manipulated.



In fact, Mercola and the people who are making money at his website are doing a disservice to the people who actually need glasses. They are promoting permanent visual loss in children with amblyopia whose parents won't take them, or won't believe the doctor's advice on wearing glasses because of these misconceptions that are being spread.
I think these guys border on criminality... they exploit people's ignorance and fear about their health and play to their paranoia about doctors to turn around and sell them some useless garbage, and along the way potentially harming people.

More to the point, let's see some results.
Go to an optometrist and get your prescription.
http://www.missioneyeclinic.bc.ca/
Or whatever reputable eye care professional you choose.

If you are a moderate myope, like -2.50 or greater, I guarantee that you do not have 20/20 distance vision, nor will you achieve it in the next 2 years, no matter what exercises you do. Guaranteed.

Let's see some actual quantitative results! Do all the exercises you want and then go back to the same person one year later, and see if there was even ANY significant decrease, period.

Please don't take the easy road and say that you don't have time or you can't follow the steps for whatever reason. I've followed this thread for more than a year and a half, so you could at least try it this for a year - after all, it is your vision - why wouldn't you want to improve it or get rid of your glasses?

More to the point, let's see some results.
Go to an optometrist and get your prescription.
http://www.missioneyeclinic.bc.ca/
Or whatever reputable eye care professional you choose.

If you are a moderate myope, like -2.50 or greater, I guarantee that you do not have 20/20 distance vision, nor will you achieve it in the next 2 years, no matter what exercises you do. Guaranteed.

Let's see some actual quantitative results! Do all the exercises you want and then go back to the same person one year later, and see if there was even ANY significant decrease, period.

Please don't take the easy road and say that you don't have time or you can't follow the steps for whatever reason. I've followed this thread for more than a year and a half, so you could at least try it this for a year - after all, it is your vision - why wouldn't you want to improve it or get rid of your glasses?

More to the point, let's see some results.
Go to an optometrist and get your prescription.
http://www.missioneyeclinic.bc.ca/
Or whatever reputable eye care professional you choose.

If you are a moderate myope, like -2.50 or greater, I guarantee that you do not have 20/20 distance vision, nor will you achieve it in the next 2 years, no matter what exercises you do. Guaranteed.

Let's see some actual quantitative results! Do all the exercises you want and then go back to the same person one year later, and see if there was even ANY significant decrease, period.

Please don't take the easy road and say that you don't have time or you can't follow the steps for whatever reason. I've followed this thread for more than a year and a half, so you could at least try it this for a year - after all, it is your vision - why wouldn't you want to improve it or get rid of your glasses?

Didn't mean to post that in triplicate. Can a moderator remove the doubles?

mercola site has become very commercial. I am not happy with it. I am happy with the info etc

I have personally experienced improvement with my eye site using the Bates method.

I know people that have as well.

The experts use to say the world was flat. In fact every year the 'facts' change.

Just because it was learned in an official school doesn't mean its fact. It means someone taight the teacher who is teaching someone who is teaching you.

You are basing your arguements on what you have been taught and experienced but your experiences are based on your beliefs and what you have been taught.

To experience another possible view one needs to drop thier preconscieved notions (as much as possible) and experience the possibility that the coin may have another side.

Isn't it funny that my religion is right and everyone elses is wrong?

and that everyones else is right to them and for most of them the rest are wrong?

"Most people are right in what theyu affirm and wrong in what they deny."

Quantum Physics shows us that we find what we are looking for in a very real way. In fact the ego percieves its beliefs as a part of self and there for challanging them is a challenge to self and it does everything it can to protect itself.

You may be entirely correct. But does that mean that everyone else is wrong?

"Those who say you can't should get out of the way of those that are already doing."

I don't think we know 1/10th% of anything. Including the human body!

Results and experience are all that matter to me. If I can do it and a million studies and the best scioence says its not possible...frankly I don't I can handle that.

We can aim to live in the limited or the limitless.

Again, depending on the intention of the experimenters the same experiemtn or study can have different results. Is it a wave or a particle?

The human could not run faster than a 4min mile. Thats what the experts said and it was true untill someone did (after which many did as it broke through thier programming that they couldn't)

If everyone believed that we couldn't fly I don't think today we would. Luckily a couple brothers did what they thought was 'write' (cheese anyone?) and proved the world wrong.

So your points may be 'true' for you and infact may be the best science to date. But reality, or at least, what we think is reality, is always changing.

Get university texts from 5 years ago and compare to today and see how many 'facts' change.

You may be right but I'll keep the belief that others may be right too...especially since there are people who get results.

Let's not discuss the relativity of truth any further.
Please go get your eyes tested, then do whatever exercises you want, and go back to the same person and test your eyes under the same conditions. Get tested more than once at beginning if you believe there is a large variability in the test results.
Prove me wrong when I say to you that the objective results will not be any different after the exercises, regardless of you believe you can see better. Let the numbers speak for themselves. Unless you don't believe that the numbers can really describe your vision objectively LOL.

If I start putting the time back into my eyes I will certainly share for the benefit of those interested.

How many docs would say tapping on maridian points while saying 'asthma' would get rid of an asthma attack??

Probably none.

But it's funny that you say you are happy with the info from a site that you yourself describe as being too commercial.
If facts are changing every day, and let's assume that we are learning more rather than less every day, isn't it a bit ridiculous to put stock in some exercises that are based in writing from more than 75 years ago?? Although "experts", the majority, and official institutions can turn out to be wrong, I think they are the safer bet than some snake oil salesman who wants $99.99 to tell me secrets no one else knows and relies on anecdotal testimony.
Just as we can use satellite info to map the earth now and for certain say it's not flat, there is enough medical technology and experience to fully describe the gross anatomy and *basic* function of the eye. Why wouldn't there be ANY published reports in PubMed on the effectivity of these eye exercises to get rid of glasses permanently if they really worked? Is it a big conspiracy by the lens manufacturers of the world? Why wouldn't orthoptists want to learn these secrets and build a huge market of former eyeglass wearers? Are the other eye care professionals sending out hit squads to silence those who learn the secret?

Why do you get whole countries killing people for religious beliefs that supposedly say not to kill and love and on the other end you have the exact same thing....?

What one is taught to believe they believe is true.

Also its a very real fact that when a study occurs that shows something that cannot be explained by the current scientific model the study is simply ignored.

The earth is round-you are saying there is no way around that fact now. That is also what I am saying. It takes along time and absolute undeniable truth to change a believe. How many people do you think look to see if the world was round and how long after it was proven (to the individuals who actually knew from experience) before a society could begin to except it?

Einstein said we were energy beings. That everything was energy. Yet the amount of study in this area is minimal.

Then when researchers, if the topic is big enough, come out and say something that is against current belief they are very often ignored, ridiculed and even loose any scientific credibiolity.

An example is being top promonant researchers with gov' grants known to be super stars within their fields finds out something that challanges beliefs and often profits and are excommunicated.. some of the AIDS researchers for example.

You'd think thats far fetched untill you look at responses by those conditioned (all schooling is conditioning-not nessasarily good or bad) to believe a certain way and you get responses like... Someone has experiences and they automatically say that is bull shit because it doesn't fit into the model they were taught.

Exactly what you are doing.

If you said "You know what, it doesn't make sense to me and from whatg I have been taught (programmed) its not possible, however people say they experience this. Are they lying? Are they delusional? Could it be true? Could there be another possible explination? Wow if it is true....hmmmmm"

As oppposed to "Thats bs! Because I was taught so."

Being open to possibilities and saying 'that doesn't make sense but I can stay open enough to entertain the idea' is open minded. You don't have to accept or reject and idea. But automatic rejection is simply someone basing the decision on what they already believe (how much of what you believe did you really come up with your self?)


I am not saying you are wrong in what you know.

I am saying that I have experienced and I know others who some other things.

Ever known a parent that cannot see that their child does some really 'bad' stuff?
They simply believe otherwise and belief limits what you can see or even try to be logical about in a very litteral way IMO&E

If you do not believe something is possible it is very likely that you could not see it even if it were.

Boxing judge watching MuayThai only sees punches.

Thai boxing judge watching kickboxing is likely to focus on the kicks.

Unless one can look at things as possibilities I don't think the brain can have much of a chance of looking past what it already 'knows'.

Look at the towers with an open mind and its plain as day something is fishy.

If I wasn't open to the possibility of this working, I wouldn't ask you to do it. I just happen to strongly believe that this is an old theory that is wrong. And I want to see further evidence one way or another.
I subscribe to the motto "if you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for anything"... maybe it's just me, but I like to build a system of facts and knowledge to explain my world that I use to judge further information. I am open to alter it. But admitting that anything is possible just opens the door to listen to what anyone has to say, regardless of how much sense they make, because who knows... it might just be that you lack the knowledge to understand them. It may be good in many instances because you will learn things you wouldn't have otherwise, but there isn't an infinite time limit in life to just explore all possibilities.
Much of this thread has involved discussion of somewhat distantly related topics. I don't think this would be warranted until the exercises show unexpected results. If they do not change your prescription, then no evidence was added to support any alternate views, and when I hear hooves, I'll just assume horses instead of zebras. I already admitted that doctors and the establishment can be wrong. How about you do the exercises, and if they fail, you admit that the internet is awash with a lot of misinformation and that there are many "alternative" gurus out there who are just straight up profiteers, preying on people's fears about their health to make money, and that maybe "the system" is actually often right?

I'd build experience before "facts" and what others tell me be they from word, book, or teacher.

I have had results. I just didn't keep it up. I also had improvements that I attribute to Qi cultivating practices.

My strength/nutrition coach, who I consider a friend and peer as well as someone I pay for services has had quite a few clients who have gotten rid of thier glasses using the Bates method.

Its actually starting to become more common. In the US their are more and more eye docs that are having clients come in and do eye 'exercises'.

I have also talked to people who have done it.

But the biggest thing for me is that I have seen pretty big differences in my own vision. Enough that I was comfortable not wearing my glasses while driving. How stressful the day was made a difference also. After training for example, especially if I pushed it a little, i wouldn't drive without them. But as I stopped doing the relaxation exercises etc I started to need to wear them all the time again.

That proves to me through experience that it can be ajusted through exercise and life style etc.

You might say its only temp and that can be an issue with this. According to The Bates Method once you improve them there are maintanace exercises that you can do in minuets (say sitting at traffic lights etc) I didn't stick with it long enough to get where I wanted and either way I didn't do the maintance. But I did see substancial results.

What exactly were you doing as these exercises?
The exercises that eye docs are having people come in and do are binocular vision exercises - i.e. keeping the eyes working together to prevent diplopia, and accomodative exercises to be able to focus on objects at near. That's nothing unusual.
If you are wearing glasses for nearsightedness (myopia), i.e. you can see perfect up close but the distance is a total blur, then I'd like to know about exercises that decrease this. That's why I was interested in knowing what your prescription was. If you didn't want to spend the money to get your eyes checked, you could probably even take your glasses to your local optical and ask them to tell you what the prescription in them is.

mostly astigmatism but I don't remember numbers..

I can't read without my glasses but when I was doing the exercises I was starting to be able to. In fact once I didn't realise I didn't have them on.

The exercises are mostly to do with relaxing them muscles and stimulating the flow.

Muscles focus the eyes. Why are they so different than muscles everywhere else in the body?

Well for starters, the "muscles" that "focus" the eyes are smooth muscles responsible for accommodation. At the distance, eyes free of refractive error should not require any accommodation to see clearly.
Then there are six muscles attached to the outside of the eyeball that are responsible for moving the eye around so you can look without turning your head. It's these muscles that some of these articles falsely claim are causing the refractive error. In fact, the refractive error is due to the shape of the cornea.

You will notice, if you have astigmatism, that if you look at the distance and then squint your eyes into slits that things will become clearer? Magic exercise?

And likely even at near too.

How does squinting make it clearer?

When you reduce the area through which light is being transmitted, the degree of aberration is reduced. You'd have to draw a diagram to illustrate this, but this can be easily be observed by just looking through a pinhole. If you have a refractive error, things will look clearer.

looking cleaer when look is clearer for the looker :)

My eyes sight, and many people when I ask them to try, is way better looking through a pin hole.

My understanding is that some of us are suposse to focus through the center more but we tend to see with too big an area and that you can retrain the eye to look and focus through the center. My vision when looking through a pin hole is champ.

I also don't believe for a second that our bodies are so poorly designed that that percentage of people should need corrective (not corrective at all, imagine if you got braces that were corrective as glasses and you had to get bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger braces for the rest of your life) lenses.

I do not subscribe to view that we are weak and helpless and that our own health is reliant on what is uniformally believed and taught (programmed) us.

How come I can get changes in focus putting pressure on my eyes and changing their shape?

Why would it be such an extreme concept (besides it was told you in school) that the muscles pulling, controling, holding etc the eye, if unbalanced and or tight, can effect its focus???

I think we all know stress can store in the muscles too...hmmm

Universal rule of the body. "Use it or loose it" Crutching with glasses makes the issue worse (how many peoples sight improves with glasses? Corrective is incorrect.

Glasses treat a symptom, poor vision. And you are on them for life.

Just like most of the rest of treatments for symptoms.

The reason that you see better through the pinhole is that you are reducing the aberrations/distortions of the light. You cannot retrain yourself to look through a narrower area, unless you intend to walk around squinting your whole life. The eye already has an area of most sensitive vision centrally. It's called the fovea.
It would be an extreme concept if the extraocular muscles affected the focus of the eye because they are attached to the eye in the form of a lever, and do not have compression as a function. When they contract or are tensed, they turn the eye, not compress it. So if there was some built-up "stress" in them, your eyes would just be misaligned. This is not higher learning theory, it's just basic anatomy. This is like denying that the biceps contract when you flex your arm. Is it possible that all the anatomists are wrong? Possible, but not likely.
Many people who wear glasses don't have any change in prescription for 10 years; some change in 6 months. We are starting to repeat many points found earlier in this thread. Yes, the glasses are a prosthetic. They don't claim to have healing properties. Conversely, I don't see how exercises that require "maintenance" are not a crutch.
Furthermore, there's also no logical argument in how glasses make your eyes worse. What are the glasses impeding you from using, exactly?
Already explained that pressing on your eyes and seeing focus changes is exactly like orthokeratology, the cornea is merely being temporarily deformed.

Glasses are about as unnatural as having braces on your teeth. They're for people who want to see 20/20, just as some people want to have perfectly straight teeth. It's natural for people not to be perfect, just as some people are fat, ugly, uncoordinated, etc.

turn the eye... tighten muscles would have no effect? I'm guessing it turns both ways? What if both are tight? Teeth move with about a gram of pressure! and I know my eyes aren't as solid and strong as my teeth. Uneven balance and tight muscles of the eye... come on.. you gotta explain it better than that. Don't need a hinge to pull on the eye, they pull on the eye to turn it!

What % of people get any improvement from wearing glasses?

As much as you don't like the less studied results of so called 'alternative' means. Conventional means have nothing to show except continued degeneration.

Edward C. Kondrot, M.D., Opthalmologist
Deborah Banker, M.D., Opthalmologist
W.B. MacCracken, M.D.
E.F. Darling M.D., Opthalmologist, Bates method teacher
Dr. Stan Appelbaum, Optometrist
Dr. John L. Fielder, D.C., D.O., N.D.

To name a few support the Bates method etc these are people who have been through the conventional system and looked at another system.

You have to wonder when some say yes and most say no. But of those that say no, who has tried and seen outside of the eyes of what was told?

But those who say no offer no hope (besides surgery). So for me that means, I'll wear glasses but I'll also keep my eyes open.

Uneven balance of the muscles = turns the eye one way or another, depending which way more force is exerted. Makes sense, no?
Both tight? That would be a neat trick, because they are antagonists. When one contracts, the other relaxes. If they were both contracting at the same time, you couldn't move your eye.

Let's suspend that fact for a minute and assume that the muscles are actually constantly tensed and causing the eye to be compressed and deformed.
First of all, don't you think the muscles would become fatigued quite quickly from the constant contraction? Try looking to your extreme left or right. See how long you can keep that up without it starting to ache.
Secondly, the inner lining of the eye, which is responsible for your vision, a.k.a. the retina, is not so resistant to deformation. Your vision would be distorted because the cells perceiving the image would be deformed. The bigger problem is that this layer does not even accept any deformation - it just rips. This is why boxers get retinal detachments when they get punched in the eye and it gets compressed, or even sometimes from transmitted trauma from a punch to the skull.

What % of people get any improvement from wearing glasses? About the same % for which glasses are prescribed as a permanent cure from their refractive error.
What % of people have any sustained improvement from pushing on their eyes? Probably about the same %s.
There aren't any controlled longitudinal studies done on it; would be a nice place to start for doctors who claim this works.

You suggest that glasses are bad. Why? Do they make the muscles tighter? How?

antagonistic muslces can both be tight.

Talk to anyone that does body work and they'll likely tell you that that would be wishful thinking. A huge amount of postural issue are due to chronic tightness. Any athelete would rejoice if that became a truth.

I am not suggesting glasses are bad. I am suggesting we are looking in a very narrow direction. I am also suggesting that the use it or loose it principle that surrounds the body applies to the eyes as well.

When i was doing my exercises and wearing my glasses less I started to get improvments. The less I wear glasses the better they get and the more I wear the faster they go back. Many people experience this. I suggest that it doesn't take rocket science to see that wearing glasses is a crutch (not saying there isn't a time and place for a crutch) and when you use a crutch your leg muscles atrophy, never mind all the aspects of making a leg move. Use it or loose it.

Tell me how many peoples vision wearing glasses maintains and doesn't deteriorate.

Muscles tighten for many reasons. Over use and straining is a common reason. Relaxing them can do wonders. Not sure why eyes are different, except it doesn't fit into the model taught in eye school.

Listen to the words. "Perminant cure". Ask an english teacher what that is suppose to mean.

It is not a sure just a crutch, which may be ok. But the programming is there are things getting fixed, but that is not the case. They are being bandaided-which can have a time or place, but lets call it what it is.

Maybe we speak a different language. But as a patient a cure to me means no more problem and a perminant sollution, the problem fixed.

Glasses allow me to see and I'm happy they atre there but they are by no stretch a cure!

Lots of people who wear glasses have vision that doesn't deteriorate.
And conversely, are you suggesting people who don't wear glasses don't experience any deterioration? If they also deteriorate, then this poses a problem for those who blame the glasses as the cause of the deterioration.
And who is doing this programming or calling glasses a "cure"? It's more like a prosthetic leg - it enhances current function while in use.

What exactly are the glasses preventing the eye from doing, that would invoke the "use it or lose it" analogy? If the muscles tighten due to straining the eye, doesn't it make sense to use the glasses to prevent strain? Or do you think using the glasses makes the eye muscles tighter?

You also didn't address the problem with the retina in your deformed eye theory.


And how about your vision isn't getting better without glasses when you don't wear them, but rather you're getting accustomed to squinting or seeing with less sharpness?

I am saying it would be interesting to look at % and speed of deterioration for those who wear and don't and how much and long they wear etc.

Your words were a cure which it is not in my opinion and understanding of what a cure means. But this is the message promoted in western medicine. A drug for life is not a cure.

There are many factors I think and not having to try to focus I don't think our eyes try to focus and therefor learn to rely on artificial focising through glasses.

Muscles tighten for many reasons, from emotion, to diet, to damage and injury, over use etc etc etc

retina-well I think its alot more complicated than that. Having 10 layers I think your answer is over simplified and not entirely correct. That said I don't know loads of detail. If you are trying to prove me wrong well you know much more about the eye than I. If you are asking to look at potentialities then I suggest looking in areas that have more info. Being only about 0.25mm think i wonder how it is so strong to hold up to things teeth can't.

Its interesting that comparing on a weight basis the 6 external eye muscles are some of the strongest in the human body.



Are you now saying that antagonistic muscles can both tight?

If you want to prove me wrong then you can win. If you want to look and discuss possibilities or ideas I suggest you look at evidence for, with an open mind, and then re add all you know to make a decision.

"There are truths which are not fro all men, nor for all timre."
-Voltaire 1761

H. W.Woodward, M.D. -had personal experience with the Bates method and Dr Bates himself.


"I have been practicing medicine as an opthalmologist for the last twenty years. During tghe period of eigthteen years prior to 1923, I spent a large part of my time putting glasses on my helpless clients. However, for the last two years I have been trying to make amends by removing their glasses as rapidly as possible."
-E.F. Darling, M.D.

"..I had gained a very decided degree of relaxation. I had, of course, discarded glasses, and, although it caused me a little discomfort at first, I was able, about a week later, to perform, without them, three tonsillectomies and one operation for cataract, and remove two blind eyes. At the same time going through my daily routine of treating ten to thirty patients, examining eyes, ears, noses and throats, much of which requires extra good vision..."
-Opthalmologist M.H. Stuart M.D. after applying some of the Bates methods



The point is you can look with an open mind and see possibilities and try them out or look to see if indeed there is truth.

Or you can look with the exact knowlage and beliefs you already have and see nothing more than what is already in your head.

I'm sure much of what you say is true and correct. But does there always have to be only one truth?

What's the date of the post where I said glasses are a cure, i.e. that wearing them causes a permanent change? If anything, I would have said they are a functional cure, i.e. gets rid of the symptom.
You suggest that wearing glasses makes the problem worse. So most people who wear glasses should have coke-bottle-thick glasses by now if they started wearing glasses as a kid. This is not the case.

If you want to argue against farsighted/hyperopes eyes being deprived of having to work/strain/focus when they have glasses on, fine. I think it's unnatural for them to have to put this strain on their eyes, because many get headaches from this, and in contrast people with no prescription don't have to do any focusing to see, yet their eyes aren't getting weaker from this lack of effort. And the most problematic issue is, what about nearsighted people, whose vision is already overfocused to begin with, what ability are they going to lose by wearing glasses? Their muscles will be too strong?

These exercises don't seem to address the opposite nature of these refractive errors. Counter-intuitive to have the same solution to problems of opposite nature. You still haven't explained what the exercises even are, specifically. Or what you believe the eye's underlying structures and function are.
What are each of the different refractive errors caused by? It seems to make sense to know these things in order to determine what exercises one should do, and to know which particular problem you are trying to correct, and maybe how this is working?

Retina- more complicated, in what aspect? What part am I incorrect about - care to explain how retinal detachments are actually caused then? Many of those 10 layers are one cell thick.
Quoting some lone guy from 1923 isn't exactly the most convincing scientific argument. A magical instrument called the electron microscope hadn't even been built at that time.


Perusing some of these quack websites:
http://www.rebuildyourvision.com/
"I'm now seeing at 20/17 again! --Phil, U.S. Air Force Pilot"
Never mind the fact that vision charts use the levels 20/20, 20/15, 20/10, not 20/17.
Of course the website advertises that these secrets can be yours at price, a special discounted price, if you act now!!

Since you haven't posted anything regarding the actual exercises, I looked up some of this Bates method.
http://www.i-see.org/bates_nutshell.html
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~hanwen/bates.htm
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~hanwen/exercise.htm#Near%20/%20far%20focusing

Is this it? Coz none of this will cause any sustained improved visual acuity.
All that they can "cure" are symptoms of "eyestrain" like "tired" eyes after computer use, where people actually still have close to 20/20 vision, but feel like their eyes are strained, which is basically related to some focusing and eye alignment problems. Things that glasses aren't always prescribed for or said to be the best or only solution to.

Here is an article which says everything I've been saying in my last couple of posts:
http://goldbamboo.com/topic-t6642-a64007.html

Looking at Bates' book of 1920 on the net, a quick perusal shows his lack of anatomical or physiological knowledge, which you can't blame him for, given the body of knowledge at that time. Most of it is aimed at relaxing techniques and blaming stress for refractive errors, and using heresay testimonies to support his theories. For example, palming cataracts away. A cataract is denatured protein in the eye lens. This is like saying that palming a hard-boiled egg for 20 hours is going to make it yolk again.

Ultimately what proves the Bates method wrong is that it will not work for anyone with a significant refractive error. Show me a guy who has glasses with a prescription of like -4.00 or +6.00 and I'll show you a guy for whom the Bates method will NEVER help to see the 20/20 line.

"...for which glasses are prescribed as a permanent cure from their refractive error."

Like I said we can find what we want.

There is plenty out there for people who would like to think in possibility and not in limited and plenty out there that do get results. Some of which I have talked with.

Seems like you'd rather prove me wrong than look at possibilities.

Yes, my point exactly ... all sorts of theories can find justification/proof by taking facts out of context

complete quote:

"What % of people get any improvement from wearing glasses? About the same % for which glasses are prescribed as a permanent cure from their refractive error.
What % of people have any sustained improvement from pushing on their eyes? Probably about the same %s."

i.e. all very low #s


I'd love to look at plausible possibilities, where they can be rationally explained and can be substantiated by facts rather than conjecture.
If you feel like you've gotten results, as the other people you've talked to, let's put it in context of what your prescription is. It's easier to notice subjective improvements when your problem is not that severe to begin with.

What can be done to motivate you to get your prescription, do the exercises, and compare the prescription after?

One can only rationally explain and understand from the the position of what one already 'knows'.

Experience is the biggest reality and fact to the individual. Not what a prof taught.

Your experiences are very true for you. I don't question that.

But sometimes when we walk around to the other side of the coin we realize there can be more than one 'truth'.

How ever I choose to consider that other people have experiences that also show something else.

Thats a choice and one I continually benifit from.

mt411-I have many a thing going on and to prove it to you just isn't very high up on my importance list.

Right now fixing my eyes for me is getting higher though.

(actually Dr. William Tiller, standford engeneer was talking about stuff he did as is eyes started to go-he said that they were better today (almost ten years ago?) than they were 20 years before that.)

I will certainly share my experiences when I have them. i have no probs with that. I intend to start doing a few things, though not a full program. I will be happy to keep you posted.

Ok, you're too busy to prove me wrong and improve your vision, yet you have time to look up further rhetoric on the net and make posts here.

Most of your arguments for this method of curing bad vision are:
a) straw man arguments (e.g. glasses don't cure your vision)
b) citing irrelevant truisms (e.g. use it or lose it, binocular vision exercises help binocular vision problems)or supposed authorities
c) "you may know more than me, but education is programmed by commercial interests and thus is full of falsehoods, and facts are relative anyway, and even if they aren't, human knowledge is not static, so anything is possible"


I never said that I don't believe people doing these exercises *felt* an improvement. I said I don't believe there was a significant objective permanent improvement.

If a person can read one or two lines away from perfect on an acuity chart, I indeed believe that they may consider themselves "blind". And if they have some small fluctuation/change in their prescription, due to their eye changing on its own, by squinting, by "learning how to see", or through what they ascribe to the power of some exercise, that's very nice. That was their experience. Yes, I heartily agree that perception of how well you see is very subjective. How well you *actually* see is not.

Now if there is a person who cannot see the big "E" on top of the chart and their prescription was like -3.00, and 1 year later, through whatever exercises they do, they can read the 20/20 line at the bottom, I'd like to know how they did it! That's not just someone's experience, that's real.
And I'm sure millions of people in this world would pay to know how to do it - they already pay thousands of dollars to have laser surgery.

The truth is that there is no coherent explanation for these exercises. Are you saying I cannot understand a physical theory of how the eye functions because I believe a different one?
Let me use a quote of something you said in an above post:

"I draw the line with the source and some logic and does it actually work"
Source: someone from a primitive medical period
Logic: no coherent explanation for conflicting observations
Does it actually work: no actual published proof other than testimonials

Are you going to accept some guy's medical theories from the 1920s just because they appeal to your "natural" approach to improving health?
Such as practicing incrementally seeing on visual acuity charts makes your sight better? This is like saying that if I practice jumping higher progressively, I will one day be able to jump over buildings.

As for the "educated" people you cite, I believe what they said was either:
a)lies or exaggeration, most likely for commercial gain,
b)taken out of context and not actually supporting these claims,
c)describing a small fluctuation,
or d)describing improvements due to physiological changes unrelated to any exercises

This sort of nonsense is easy to propagate for internal subjective/psychological problems like pain, depression, anxiety, lack of sense of well-being, but vision can externally and objectively be quantitatively measured. So proving or disproving these assertions is possible.
Do you honestly believe that there are people out there who can make significant refractive errors go away, but are too busy to publish an experiment showing it, and become filthy rich?

Whatever. If you're not legally required to wear glasses to drive by the ministry of transportation, your refractive error is not major anyway. In which case, your prescription is probably something like +1.00-0.75x180 and all your "results" would be highly subjective anyway, and not applicable to someone with serious trouble seeing.

I'm not trying to prove you are wrong.

I am saying there may be more than one truth.

Many many people will pay for someone else to work on them way before they will pay to do anything themselves. We are in a society of the quick fixes, which is usually quick covers or bandaids on the symptoms, not the underlaying issues.

Like I said I will be happy to share for anyone interested when i do sort my eyes out. But at that point ones perception will be, wow, maybe there is something here, or bs shit, it goes against what I believe. So even if I wanted to 'prove' to you it would be quite futile. You have already posted above that my case wouldn't impress you. There is already the judgement and the dec about how things are so it would be impossible to see anything otherwise.

Darwin has written about when he went to Patagonia on the Begal (stories of the same with Columbus) and the Patagonian were not able to see the ship. A literal, total 'truth, that was physical and unmistakable to us. But as they had never seen one of conceptualized anything of the sort, it was not seen.

Many studies actually support the fact that, at least to some degree, we create our own realities and that we see what we want to see.

I am not saying glasses don't have a purpose or some good things about them. I am saying that there are people that have different experinces. For one, I choose to see and believe that and in my personal experience, though not perminant, I have see a differance in my own eyes and have talked to people that have done it perminantly.

I cann't argue the technicalities with you and its pointless (I'm a slow learner) to really discuss that there might be more out there than you or I already know.

One thing I have learned about the human body and in fact anything, is that I don't know shit about it. I also know that no man really does either.

The power of belief.

the plasebo effect is looked at like it doesn't count cause....

I look at it like it saying, that we can get very real effects from belief.

Plasebo surgeries (as well as pills) get results about 63% of the time!!!!!!!

Explain that without considering the power of the mind. I believe I can heal my eyes and that brings it much closer to reality than the limiting belief that I must rely on what YOU or anyone else thinks. That I must rely on bandaaids and knives limits my possibilities.

People do do it (IMO). People don't (IYO). Thats cool. I'm glad I choose to be able to heal, even if you don't think I can.

I find it pretty facinating that people with multiple personalities can have different eye conditions in different personality states. One could be far sighted and another can be near sighted.

(allergies and diabetes etc can be the same with multi personalities...)

Certainly pretty compelling evidence to suggest that there is more to it that 'how an eye functions' indipendant to it whole of a human being. At least thats my take.

I find it pretty facinating that people with multiple personalities can have different eye conditions in different personality states. One could be far sighted and another can be near sighted.

(allergies and diabetes etc can be the same with multi personalities...)

Certainly pretty compelling evidence to suggest that there is more to it that 'how an eye functions' independant to it whole of a human being. At least thats my take.

I find it pretty facinating that people with multiple personalities can have different eye conditions in different personality states. One could be far sighted and another can be near sighted.

(allergies and diabetes etc can be the same with multi personalities...)

Certainly pretty compelling evidence to suggest that there is more to it that 'how an eye functions' independant to it whole of a human being. At least thats my take.

*mt411's head explodes*

I spent about 5-10minutes with a woman the other day. Last Sat actually after a play I did. We talked outside for a bit and a mutual friend had told her about some work we had done in which his shoulder pain (20yrs old) started to go away (we only worked on emotional issues that he didn't think he had).

She said she had had blurred vision for about 1 yr. On a scale of 0-10 I think she gave it a 7. In 5-10 minutes we had it to about a 3.

I do not know if it is perminant. I do not know what her condition was. All I know is that in my experience I get big results with phyical issues by working on emotional issues. We worked on some emotional stuff she had about 1 yr ago (when it started-yet to find a case that didn't seem to work this way). We did link it metaphorically to seeing or blurring vission.

All I know is results no matter what any old school science says.

There is an eye doc I have seen on DVD lecturing who uses EFT and there have been studies done with it also.

On emofree.com trhere is a video that shows blood samples before EFT and after 5min of EFT (think it was 5 min).

Personally I can only come from a place of experience (the only place any of us can come from besides what someone else told us). 90+% of the time I get results on physical issues by working on emotional (sometimes straight on physicalk works but my belief is we are working on the energetic imbalances and emotions without us knowing what they are.

Small case with eyes and didn't do much. I hope to hear an update from her and we may do some phone work or she may contact and EFT practitioner in her area (this was out of province for me).

I did get my eyes tested and when I stop wearing my glases I will share my prescription and get retested.

I will do it.

"One of the most baffling mysteries of multiple personality disorder is how alternate personalities can sometimes show very different biological characteristics from the host and from each other. Several personalities sharing one body may have different heart rates, blood pressures, body temperatures, pain tolerances, and eyesight abilities. Different alters may have unique reactions to medications. Sometimes a healthy host can have alternate personalities with allergies and even asthma. An alter's blood glucose (sugar) may respond differently to insulin than the host's. Since studies done on people with such dramatically different alters have been small, no conclusions can be drawn and the puzzle remains to be solved."
-http://science.jrank.org/pages/4497/Multiple-Personality-Disorder-Symptoms.html

Good business to get into that. Selling multiple glasses for multiple personalities. :P


speaking of insulin - you know there are insulin receptors in the brain
and all the seritonin inhibitors etc... well thats not just in the brain - they find all the receptors for 'emotions' everywhere they look - including immune system and muscles etc

literally and hard science - the cells all over the whole body have the recptor sites for all the 'molecules of emotion'

Literaly with hard science the molecules released when you are angry go to the cells all over your body

Say the word 'angry' and I can show you instantly how you are weaker.
Literaly with a muscle test (for examples I usally use the deltoid). You say angry, or think of something that makes you angry and you will test weaker.

Anyone noticed how their vision is worse when they are stressed?

There is a small leap (IMO) to realizing emotions gets stored in the body, often in muscle (actually science shows the molecules DO go there).

In my work I get way better and faster results with a physical issue if I look for emotional components!

20 yr old shoulder pain - went from emotion - 3min big change
back pain from work accident (8yrs ago) and later car accident(1.5yrs ago) - went from emotional
student pulled a muscle in a street fight (he was attacked) - gone in 2min - went from emotional
knee - swollen to about twice size ski accident - came down about 30% working on physical - worked on beliefs about healing and then hit emotional another 10min you couldn't tell there was swelling
knee pain (twisted) in a MuayThai class - worked on emotional for about 5 min in parking lot

etc etc etc

I'm either lieing, delusional/crazy, or telling the truth as I see it from experience (not just what I have been told)

Point is, time and time again I see healing occur in the physical body when emotional issues are found and addressed and so far its seems to be no matter what the official cause of the injury is.

Am I saying it is all emotional? Hell no.
But I am saying we are holistic human beings. We can't be sliced and diced and issolated to know how to work with the whole. IMO

My experience suggests to me that there is more than the purely physical level to any part of the human being.

Never mind E=MC2

That means the body is made of energy!

Have yet to do some serious time with a client on eyes yet..though last time I was in BC I spent 30 minutes with woman. We were both between appointments and traded some time with each other.

At the start she looked at a certificate on the wall. How blurry it was to her we called a 10. (she couldn't read much)

We cleared out 2 or 3 painful childhood memories that i thought were connected then tapped directly for her vision. In less than 10 minutes on vision itself and total time less than 30 minutes she went from a 10 to a 4. About a 60% improvement.

Considering the short time spent I think that is pretty profound - she was amazed.

I do not know how long it held - will try to find out. I know there is more to do and 30min doesn't cover near enough. If it did come back however, it make sense to me that if it got 60% better for a short while it can stay better.

My experience with tapping and physical issues is if they get better then come back there is simply more to do. e call it more aspects.

well I'm glad you got yourself tested, and look forward to hearing your results

Are multiple personalities real??

Can you point me to the place where you found they had done the tests on eye sight in mulitple personality people?

I would find it intriguing. The idea always amazed me.

found your reference?

"When under the control of one alter, they may exhibit different behaviors, mannerisms, personalities, gender orientation, and physical properties (such as handedness, allergies and eyesight)..."

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38077



"One of the most baffling mysteries of multiple personality disorder is how alternate personalities can sometimes show very different biological characteristics from the host and from each other. Several personalities sharing one body may have different heart rates, blood pressures, body temperatures, pain tolerances, and eyesight abilities."

http://science.jrank.org/pages/4497/Multiple-Personality-Disorder-Symptoms.html


This is nothing out of the norm for multiples and it has been known for a long long time.

The question then arises "Is it possible it is not purely physical?"

Science shows that are genes are influenced and turn off and on by environment, thoughts and emotions etc...

Bruce Lipton has done some great work on genes etc He worked for years on the cloning projects. "Biology Of Belief" is a very good book of his and his site has some very interesting articles on quantum physics and how we effect our genes etc

http://www.brucelipton.com/

Course, stepping away from the dogma leaves him open to ridicule...

That site doesnt list any references

Do you know where they got the information??

Have you retested your eyes mark to prove your methods have made improvements?

Should be interesting results....I wear glasses my self...so very interested....have done some basic and mid level studies on the physiology of the eye and what mt411 has said makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Thats just based on my own experience and years of data from optometrists etc....but like I was saying if the exercising of your eyes makes a difference...let me know so I can foolow the regime and hopefully get similar results.

so?

ttt

Bruce Lipton - there are lots of references in "Biology Of Belief" I would imagine he has stuff on his site...
He has been highly credited in many areas of gene and stem cell research etc

once I sort my eyes out I will pass it on :) it is not a focused project right now..

I would be interested in hearing your guys thoughts on split personalities having different eye issues though. I know it doesn't fit in the paradigm taught to us but it is very well documented. Exceptions to scientific known "facts" are routinely ignored instead of considered and questioned.

It is a clear statement to me strongly suggesting that there is more to it than purely physical.

a clear statement perhaps made by those unqualified to assess its validity...

having acclaim in gene and stem cell research also does not qualify him in vision research

anyway, what are these references even saying? perceptions in different states obviously do differ... when you are angry or on an adrenaline rush, you will notice/"see" your periphery less... kids who are nervous will have accomodative spasms, which will change their sight... this doesn't really say anything

I think I may not have been clear.

I don't think he talks about split personalities and eye sight. I gave other references for that.

Simply look at definitions and descriptions on split personalities and the different eye conditions are mentioned. It woudn't be hard to find ref for it as it has been known for a long long time.

Bruce Liptons work shows how our thoughts and emotions are part of the environment that activate genes and that the gene is indeed mostly controlled by the environment.

Do any looking and research on splits and you will likely come across many ref to different eye conditions and I did ref a couple places in an earlier thread.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38077
"When under the control of one alter, they may exhibit different behaviors, mannerisms, personalities, gender orientation, and physical properties (such as handedness, allergies and eyesight)"


http://science.jrank.org/pages/4497/Multiple-Personality-Disorder-Symptoms.html
"One of the most baffling mysteries of multiple personality disorder is how alternate personalities can sometimes show very different biological characteristics from the host and from each other. Several personalities sharing one body may have different heart rates, blood pressures, body temperatures, pain tolerances, and eyesight abilities. Different alters may have unique reactions to medications. Sometimes a healthy host can have alternate personalities with allergies and even asthma. An alter's blood glucose (sugar) may respond differently to insulin than the host's. Since studies done on people with such dramatically different alters have been small, no conclusions can be drawn and the puzzle remains to be solved."



mentor.lscf.ucsb.edu/course/fall/psyc103/PSY_103_Dissociative.doc -
The Nature of Sub-Personalities or ‘Alters’

l Not “multiple personalities” but fragments of one personality separated by “dissociative barriers”

l Average DID case has about 10 alters, number can range from 2-100.

l Alters can “know” each other or be mutually amnestic

l Alters can differ in:
– Name
– Speech
– Mannerisms
– Attitudes
– Thoughts
– Sexual orientation
– Physical characteristics like allergies, handedness, eyesight, and EEG



http://www.iblindness.org/evidence/
Among the most intriguing characteristics of MPD patients are the physiologic differences demonstrated in different personality states. Differences in ocular visual status in alter personality states have been reported with respect to visual acuity, manifest refration, pupil size, corneal curvature, intraocular pressure, binocular alignment, visual fields, and color vision. The most dramatic findings include the existence of personality-specific strabismus, and in the case reported in this paper, personality -specific hemianopsia and refractive differences in alter personalities of suffient magnitude to require the use of different glasses.

there are a couple...

If you research split and multiple etc it is al over the place

I worked with a woman a little in a group setting so we didn't get too deep.

We tried EFT on her eyes with no results. I muscle tested her to see if there was a past experience that may contribute and got a situation with her father at 14 years old. Just as she was leaving it came to her what happened. I suspect she will be working on it and if she comes to the next group i will share any changes.

I have worked with two people before on eye sight and after working on emotional issues I thought were related had results twice. Neither time was a proper session yet both had remarkable results.

If thoughts and emotions play a big role in activating genes - the point of ref Bruce Lipton - then it is not that strange to experience what physical body change when you work on the emotional which I experience with many clients.

I have been working with a psychologist who had some difficulty writing. 3 docs said it was neurological. With EFT and working on emotional stuff her writing has improved amazing amounts.

Cells respond and act according to the info that goes into the receptors sites. The receptor sites include those for peptides released with emotions. Disruptions in the meridians can also be caused by emotions and the energy flows in the body affect body function. - look at Candace Perts work

I am offering info that makes sense to me that I see evidence of over and over again with clients.

Allergies
Friend of mine - cleared out emotions around her dad bringing home a new woman after his divorce and her allergies disappeared.

Am I lying? Am I delusional? Is there another explanation?

When something can't be explained by the scientific dogma it is routinely ignored. But what of split personalities having different vision??? Should we ignore it or consider that maybe there is more about the body than Newtonian reductionism can explain?

http://www.iblindness.org/evidence/ <--- another Bates promoting site... no offense, but most of these sources you give are utter rubbish

While I don't have a problem with differences in people perceptions (e.g. something hurts more for someone), I won't believe in things like different physical properties (e.g. corneal curvature) with "MPD"... that's pretty much like believing in Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde, or the Incredible Hulk... I won't say it's not possible... just personally, I don't believe in someone turning into the green giant... I'll stick with "scientific dogma" like verified (by reputable people), repeatable results (preferably with a proper explanation) vs. some hack's anecdotal evidence (it works - it's magic!)

I hear you I think. :) cool cool

Question - are you saying you don't believe splits can have different physical symptoms?

symptoms yes
signs... doubtful