http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=440
Alison McCook, "Dark, Leafy Greens Help Shield Eyes from Cataracts",
Reuters, December 3, 2004,
Link: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MC2JHZJX4PUUUCRBA…
New research provides further evidence that substances in kale,
spinach and other green vegetables help protect aging eyes from
cataracts.
In an experiment, investigators found that human eye cells treated
with antioxidants called lutein and zeaxanthin showed less damage
after being exposed to ultraviolet rays, the sunlight ingredient
considered a major contributor to cataracts.
Cataracts occur when proteins in the eye’s lens begin to clump
together, forming a milky cloud that obscures vision. Currently,
around 20 million Americans have cataracts, and research suggests that
the more sunlight you are exposed to in life, the greater your risk.
It’s hard to say how much of each antioxidant people should get in
their diets, given that little is known about how antioxidants in the
bloodstream reach the eyes, study author Dr. Joshua A. Bomser told
Reuters Health.
"While the specific experiments haven’t been done…we know generally:
eat more fruits and vegetables," he said.
Foods that contain particularly high doses of lutein and zeaxanthin
include kale, collard greens, broccoli, turnip greens and spinach.
Bomser explained that there is ample evidence to suggest that people
who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables seem to have a lower risk of
age-related cataracts.
To investigate why, Bomser and his colleagues at Ohio State University
in Columbus grew human lens cells in a laboratory, then added lutein,
zeaxanthin, vitamin E, or left the cells alone. The researchers then
exposed the eye cells to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, in order to mimic
the effect of sunlight.
In an interview, Bomser explained that lens cells mixed with lutein
and zeaxanthin showed significantly less damage following UV-exposure
than cells that had no shielding from antioxidants.
And although vitamin E appeared to offer some protection from UV rays,
it was surpassed by both lutein and zeaxanthin, he and his colleagues
note in the Journal of Nutrition.
However, other research shows that both vitamins E and C appear to
protect body cells from damage from free radicals, which are a normal
byproduct of metabolism, Bomser noted.
He added that it’s always better to eat antioxidant-rich foods than
supplements, in order to get the benefits of other healthy substances
present in foods. However, barring that, research does suggest that
people can also benefit from taking lutein and zeaxanthin supplements,
Bomser said.
SOURCE: Journal of Nutrition, December 2004.
It is good to displace grains with greens.
Not only for the lutein and carotenoids but also for
the folate and phylloquinones. One needs to make
dark greens a component of the diet every day and
more than one serving at that.
"Roman Bystrianyk" <rbystria…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f28e591.0412031811.54848ea7@posting.google.com…
> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=440
> Alison McCook, "Dark, Leafy Greens Help Shield Eyes from Cataracts",
> Reuters, December 3, 2004,
> Link:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MC2JHZJX4PUUUCRBA...
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> New research provides further evidence that substances in kale,
> spinach and other green vegetables help protect aging eyes from
> cataracts.
> In an experiment, investigators found that human eye cells treated
> with antioxidants called lutein and zeaxanthin showed less damage
> after being exposed to ultraviolet rays, the sunlight ingredient
> considered a major contributor to cataracts.
> Cataracts occur when proteins in the eye’s lens begin to clump
> together, forming a milky cloud that obscures vision. Currently,
> around 20 million Americans have cataracts, and research suggests that
> the more sunlight you are exposed to in life, the greater your risk.
> It’s hard to say how much of each antioxidant people should get in
> their diets, given that little is known about how antioxidants in the
> bloodstream reach the eyes, study author Dr. Joshua A. Bomser told
> Reuters Health.
> "While the specific experiments haven’t been done…we know generally:
> eat more fruits and vegetables," he said.
> Foods that contain particularly high doses of lutein and zeaxanthin
> include kale, collard greens, broccoli, turnip greens and spinach.
> Bomser explained that there is ample evidence to suggest that people
> who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables seem to have a lower risk of
> age-related cataracts.
> To investigate why, Bomser and his colleagues at Ohio State University
> in Columbus grew human lens cells in a laboratory, then added lutein,
> zeaxanthin, vitamin E, or left the cells alone. The researchers then
> exposed the eye cells to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, in order to mimic
> the effect of sunlight.
> In an interview, Bomser explained that lens cells mixed with lutein
> and zeaxanthin showed significantly less damage following UV-exposure
> than cells that had no shielding from antioxidants.
> And although vitamin E appeared to offer some protection from UV rays,
> it was surpassed by both lutein and zeaxanthin, he and his colleagues
> note in the Journal of Nutrition.
> However, other research shows that both vitamins E and C appear to
> protect body cells from damage from free radicals, which are a normal
> byproduct of metabolism, Bomser noted.
> He added that it’s always better to eat antioxidant-rich foods than
> supplements, in order to get the benefits of other healthy substances
> present in foods. However, barring that, research does suggest that
> people can also benefit from taking lutein and zeaxanthin supplements,
> Bomser said.
> SOURCE: Journal of Nutrition, December 2004.
rbystria…@gmail.com (Roman Bystrianyk) wrote in message <news:4f28e591.0412031811.54848ea7@posting.google.com>…
> Cataracts occur when proteins in the eye’s lens begin to clump
> together, forming a milky cloud that obscures vision. Currently,
> around 20 million Americans have cataracts, and research suggests that
> the more sunlight you are exposed to in life, the greater your risk.
the more the sunglasses are widespread, the more the cataracts in the
population.
it is the exact contrary to what these people say.
why you still believe in all that, I don’t know.
the evidence is so clear, by following the standard accepted views,
people gets every day more ill…
the more sunlight, the better for the eyes and for the general health
of the body.
of course, a sunlight-starved person, as it is every one in our
society, when exposed abruptly will get some damage at first. but by
practicing the right way, you can heal yourself very easily with
sunlight.
there is no need for one food or another, if you are healthy thanks to
the sunlight…
Rishi Giovanni Gatti wrote:
> rbystria…@gmail.com (Roman Bystrianyk) wrote:
>>Cataracts occur when proteins in the eye’s lens begin to clump
>>together, forming a milky cloud that obscures vision. Currently,
>>around 20 million Americans have cataracts, and research suggests that
>>the more sunlight you are exposed to in life, the greater your risk.
> of course, a sunlight-starved person, as it is every one in our
> society, when exposed abruptly will get some damage at first. but by
> practicing the right way, you can heal yourself very easily with
> sunlight.
> there is no need for one food or another, if you are healthy thanks to
> the sunlight…
>
In the 1970′s the health experts of the world came to the conclusion
that we humans could get our Vitamin A from pre-cursor beta-carotene.
This served several purposes. Carrots are a lot cheaper than fish oil;
and the general mis-information that all fats are bad for us could be
continued and broadened.
There are many indications that these conclusions were premature, yet
the pro-carotene anti-fat lobby continues unabated, now adding lutein to
it’s campain to get us to eat less fish and oil and more colored fruits
and vegetables.
1. Promoting carotenes for 30 years has not improved Vit A deficiency
worldwide:
a. ‘Each year, about 250,000 children throughout the world become blind
due to vitamin A deficiency. Measles, pneumonia and diarrhea reduce the
child’s reserves of retinol and increase the dietary requirement for
vitamin A. Improvement of social conditions is a radical approach to
preventing vitamin A deficiency.’ [Steinkuller PG; Nutritional blindness
in Africa. Soc Sci Med, 1983, 17:22, 1715-21]
b. ‘We studied 20 children with measles in Long Beach, Calif., and found
that 50% (95% confidence interval; 28% to 72%) were vitamin A deficient.
This frequency among presumably well nourished American children
supports evaluation of vitamin A status as a part of acute management of
measles in the United States.’ [Arrieta AC; Zaleska M; Stutman HR; Marks
MI; Vitamin A levels in children with measles in Long Beach, California.
J Pediatr, 1992 Jul, 121:1, 75-8]
Health conscious Americans with limited information on nutrition in
public education have relied on the food guide pyramid for several
decades. Fear of fats and cholesterol as well as inaccurate reporting of
vitamin A bio-availability from pre-cursor beta-carotene foods has
likely contributed to decreased intake of natural vitamin A foods and
use of truly supportive cod-liver oil supplementation. Fish liver oil
supplementation is the first recorded supplement used in the human diet
with records identifying this practice in Ancient Egypt (Olsen, Modern
Nutrition in Health and Disease).
2. Vitamin A retinol levels may rise when carotenoids are ingested or
given as supplements, in some people. This does not prove that
carotenoids are being converted to retinol. Carotenoids compete for
retinol binding receptor sites. ‘The most likely explanations for
carotenoid interactions appear to be competition for incorporation into
micelles, carotenoid exchange between lipoproteins in the postprandial
state, and inhibition of provitamin A (betacarotene)cleavage.’ [van den
Berg H. Carotenoid interactions. Nutr Rev 1999 Jan;57(1):1-10]
3. Some populations studied have NO increase in vitamin A levels when
given vitamin A precursor foods or supplements. [de Pee S et al. Lack of
improvement in vitamin A status with increased consumption of darkgreen
leafy vegetables. Lancet. 1995.] [Fallon S.; Health and nutrition in
isolated traditional societies; Online article.]
4. Major studies on the effectiveness of beta-carotene supplementation
for cancer prevention called the CARET studies failed miserably and had
to be stopped early. ‘The analyses of two major lung cancer prevention
trials, beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET) and
Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (ATBC), were also published this past
year. Both found an increased incidence of lung cancer in individuals
receiving beta-carotene.’ [Goodman GE; Prevention of lung cancer. Curr
Opin Oncol, 1998 Mar, 10:2, 122-6]
‘CARET participants receiving the combination of beta-carotene and
vitamin A had no chemopreventive benefit and had excess lung cancer
incidence and mortality. The results are highly consistent with those
found for beta-carotene in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene Cancer
Prevention Study in 29,133 male smokers in Finland.’ [Omenn GS et al;
Risk factors for lung cancer and for intervention effects in CARET, the
Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial; J Natl Cancer Inst, 1996 Nov,
88:21, 1550-9] ‘Supplementation with alpha-tocopherol or beta-carotene
does not prevent lung cancer in older men who smoke. beta-Carotene
supplementation at pharmacologic levels may modestly increase lung
cancer incidence in cigarette smokers, and this effect may be associated
with heavier smoking and higher alcohol intake. IMPLICATIONS: While the
most direct way to reduce lung cancer risk is not to smoke tobacco,
smokers should avoid high-dose beta-carotene supplementation.’ [Albanes
D et al; Alpha-Tocopherol and beta-carotene supplements and lung cancer
incidence in the alphatocopherol, beta-carotene cancer prevention study:
effects of base-line characteristics and study compliance J Natl Cancer
Inst, 1996 Nov, 88:21, 1560-70 57.]
AS far as the post on cataracts is concerned: ‘investigators found that
human eye cells treated with antioxidants called lutein and zeaxanthin
showed less damage after being exposed to ultraviolet rays’ really
proves nothing. Yes, lutein in the plant protects the plant from UV.
Yes, the small amount of lutein in the retina probably does the same,
but there is no evidence that dietary lutein increases protection from
cataracts or macular degenaration.
The real reason that we have been bombarded with these ‘government
health messages’ for 30 years is, of course, money and corporate
interests. It is unfortunate that the alternative health industry has
bought into the lies and started to promote carotenes as healthy.
When it was discovered that the enormous increase in heart disease was
linked to hydrogenated vegetable oils and their widespread use in the
packaged food industry, enormous pressure was put on the govt.
regulatory bodies to disguise this fact by blaming all fats, but
especially pointing to animal fats and dairy fat. The result was that
butter was replaced by ‘healthy’ margarine in our diet, and heart
disease rates continued to soar. Udo Erasmus’s book ‘Fats That Heal,
Fats That Kill’ started the fightback, but still the ‘fats are bad,
colored vegetables are good’ myth continues.
Sometimes cloudy vision, or more accurately, smoky or hazy vision, can be
caused by a dry surface of the eye. I suggest this because you mentioned you
spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen, and this is known to lead
to dry eyes in many people – especially if you work in an airconditioned
environment. Bicycle riding is also a definite potential cause of dry eyes.
It’s possible to have eyes that are dry enough to cause mild vision changes
without them feeling too uncomfortable.
You could try using some non-preserved unit-does artificial tears, such as
"Refresh", on a frequent basis (say every hour or two) for a couple of days,
to see if the cloudy vision improves.
This is only a guess based on your information, and certainly not *the*
definitive answer to your problem. But it’s easy to try the eye drops, and
even if dryness is not the cause of your problems, you won’t have done any
harm by trying them.
Does the cloudiness fluctuate from day to day, or from hour to hour? If so,
when is it most noticeable?
Dom
"news" <buff…@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:9sedndl7XNhA_i3cRVn-gQ@adelphia.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Greetings;
> Before I explain my question I need to gove you some background. I am a
38
> yr old male, good shape, otherwise healthy. I was diagnosed with cone
> dystrophy and myopic degeneration as a child and am legally blind. These
> conditions are inherited from my mother’s father by me, my brother, and a
> male cousin. All this is well and good as I have learned to live with my
> visual problems and make good use of alternative techniques when
necessary.
> My left eye is my good one and my right is a lazy eye and doesn’t focus as
> it should in conjunction with the left.
> Lately I have had a problem with "cloudiness" in my left eye. I have seen
> my Opthomologist about ehis and she was unable to see any sort of a
problem.
> The lense looked clear. I have had no other symptoms aside from the
> cloudiness. No tearing, pain, warmth, or discharge. She tested my eyes
and
> glasses and said the problem is not my perscription ( I believe this as
the
> cloudiness is still noticable even without the glasses.
> I am a computer technician by trade and spend a lot of time reading a
> computer monitor. I am also an avid bicyclist but have been unable to
persue
> this since the cloudiness problem.
> Any ideas what may be causing this problem? I’m stumped and would like to
> be able to give the Dr. some idea or a good reason to send me to a
> specialist.
> Thanks
> MPR
i am using some drops from the Dr. — Can’t read the name of them, with no
improvement. I don’t think it’s dry eyes because the droips have not proven
effective. Any other ideas?
MPR
"Dom" <NOmoadsls…@tpg.nospam.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b12200$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Sometimes cloudy vision, or more accurately, smoky or hazy vision, can be
> caused by a dry surface of the eye. I suggest this because you mentioned
you
> spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen, and this is known to
lead
> to dry eyes in many people – especially if you work in an airconditioned
> environment. Bicycle riding is also a definite potential cause of dry
eyes.
> It’s possible to have eyes that are dry enough to cause mild vision
changes
> without them feeling too uncomfortable.
> You could try using some non-preserved unit-does artificial tears, such as
> "Refresh", on a frequent basis (say every hour or two) for a couple of
days,
> to see if the cloudy vision improves.
> This is only a guess based on your information, and certainly not *the*
> definitive answer to your problem. But it’s easy to try the eye drops, and
> even if dryness is not the cause of your problems, you won’t have done any
> harm by trying them.
> Does the cloudiness fluctuate from day to day, or from hour to hour? If
so,
> when is it most noticeable?
> Dom
> "news" <buff…@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:9sedndl7XNhA_i3cRVn-gQ@adelphia.com…
> > Greetings;
> > Before I explain my question I need to gove you some background. I am a
> 38
> > yr old male, good shape, otherwise healthy. I was diagnosed with cone
> > dystrophy and myopic degeneration as a child and am legally blind.
These
> > conditions are inherited from my mother’s father by me, my brother, and
a
> > male cousin. All this is well and good as I have learned to live with
my
> > visual problems and make good use of alternative techniques when
> necessary.
> > My left eye is my good one and my right is a lazy eye and doesn’t focus
as
> > it should in conjunction with the left.
> > Lately I have had a problem with "cloudiness" in my left eye. I have
seen
> > my Opthomologist about ehis and she was unable to see any sort of a
> problem.
> > The lense looked clear. I have had no other symptoms aside from the
> > cloudiness. No tearing, pain, warmth, or discharge. She tested my eyes
> and
> > glasses and said the problem is not my perscription ( I believe this as
> the
> > cloudiness is still noticable even without the glasses.
> > I am a computer technician by trade and spend a lot of time reading a
> > computer monitor. I am also an avid bicyclist but have been unable to
> persue
> > this since the cloudiness problem.
> > Any ideas what may be causing this problem? I’m stumped and would like
to
> > be able to give the Dr. some idea or a good reason to send me to a
> > specialist.
> > Thanks
> > MPR
http://www.ardice.com/Regional/North_America/United_States/New_Jersey...
On 2 Dec 2004 12:30:11 -0800, ryan.gor…@bbc.co.uk (Ryan) wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>I recently purchased a set of Oakley wire frame sunglasses (the
>thickness of the frame for the sunglasses is identical to the frame
>thickness of my glasses) and had a local optician provide me with
>Polarized lenses to go into the Oakley frame. I had expressed
>significant concern about the thickness to which I was told that he
>had a lense/technique combination that would provide the thinnest
>possible lense for my prescription. Now I have received the new
>lenses and they are more than twice as thick as my current lenses in
>my regular glasses and they look like giant coke bottles. I brought
>this up and was told they couldn’t be any thinner since it was really
>two lenses sandwhiched together. However, I am completely
>dissatisfied as this is exactly what I told him I wanted to avoid.
>The polarized lenses at the point nearest the nose are not thick at
>all and similar to my glasses, however the polarized lense at point
>nearest the earpiece are over 7mm thick where my regular glasses are
>less than 3 mm thick. The wire frames for both my Oakley sunglasses
>and my glasses are 2mm in thickness.
>Have I just been ripped off so this guy could sell me a very high
>priced ($325) pair of lenses.
>My prescription is:
> -2.75 – 0.75 x 110
> -3.00 – 0.75 x 55
>I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks for your time.
If the frame is a wrap style a steeper than recommended base (front) curve will
have to be used. These lenses will be thicker and heavier with blurred off axis
vision.
If the sun frame is larger than your clear glasses the lenses will be thicker
and heavier.
If the center thickness is greater than about 2mm the lenses will be
unnecessarily thick and heavy.
Hope this helps
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
rob…@execpc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
– Richard Feynman
I recently purchased a set of Oakley wire frame sunglasses (the
thickness of the frame for the sunglasses is identical to the frame
thickness of my glasses) and had a local optician provide me with
Polarized lenses to go into the Oakley frame. I had expressed
significant concern about the thickness to which I was told that he
had a lense/technique combination that would provide the thinnest
possible lense for my prescription. Now I have received the new
lenses and they are more than twice as thick as my current lenses in
my regular glasses and they look like giant coke bottles. I brought
this up and was told they couldn’t be any thinner since it was really
two lenses sandwhiched together. However, I am completely
dissatisfied as this is exactly what I told him I wanted to avoid.
The polarized lenses at the point nearest the nose are not thick at
all and similar to my glasses, however the polarized lense at point
nearest the earpiece are over 7mm thick where my regular glasses are
less than 3 mm thick. The wire frames for both my Oakley sunglasses
and my glasses are 2mm in thickness.
Have I just been ripped off so this guy could sell me a very high
priced ($325) pair of lenses.
My prescription is:
-2.75 – 0.75 x 110
-3.00 – 0.75 x 55
I appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks for your time.
Hi Larry,
According to my Ocular Sciences/Coopervision rep recently on this side of
the pond, from early 2005 Biomedics 55 will NOT be available in the standard
form it will ONLY be in the aspheric form.
Whether this is happening with you I don’t know.
Regards
Ian Hodgson _ Isle of Man
"LarryDoc" <larry…@nospam.yahoodotcom> wrote in message
news:larrydoc-DBB6E9.23385102122004@news.verizon.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <AXSrd.38050$VL6.35095@clgrps13>,
> DG <david.grant-NOS…@telus.net> wrote:
> So let me see if I have this right. You have a written prescription:
> > And my doctor’s prescription (which I have in front of me) says "Fitted
> > with: Biomedics 55," "Laboratory: Ocular Sciences." Date of fitting
> > Oct./2004, issued and signed by optometrist 11/17/2004.
> And you attempt to order a lens based on a picture:
> > I ordered Ultraflex 55 online and the picture looked just like my usual
> > Biomedics 55 box.
> That has a different name in the hope that it’s the correct lens and
> then:
> >The online dealer says: "According to our
> > information, the manufacturer has changed the brand name and packaging.
> > The lens is now the Biomedics 55 Premier lens."
> Which is actually NOT true. They lied. The sold you what they had in
> stock. You have Biomedics 55, which is, in fact the same lens as the
> private label Ultraflex which should be replaced with Biomedics 55 and
> they send you something different. Clever. But you persist:
> > > Did the on-line store check with your prescribing doctor; in the US it
is
> > > required by law?
> > I am from Canada and would have provided my doctor’s information but
> > they said not to, unless I are from US.
> And when you tried to get hold of them to ask, you couldn’t. Appropriate
> health care delivery? Yeah, that’s right. Wearing of contact lenses is
> a health issue.
> > Anyways, your statement is
> > beyond the scope of this conversation and off-topic.
> No, it’s not. You’ve just shown the world that ordering contact lenses
> from someone on-line that doesn’t give a damn about (forget the law)
> doing the right thing creates all sorts of confusion and concerns.
> Which, in this case, is probably unfounded, But. for other people, it
> could be a big problem if they received "the deal of the day."
> > I told them Ultraflex 55, then sent me Biomedics 55 Premier
> > (aspherical). What I am asking is: what is the difference?
> > I said that I have been using Biomedics 55 for a long time. So that is
> > what fits for me. That’s what my doctor prescribes.
> And is there some reason why you shouldn’t have what he/she prescribes
> and that which you know works for you?
> Isn’t that what "prescription" is all about? It’s not about: "try this
> one and see if you like it."
> –LB, O.D.
In article <6510fc8a.0412021305.1aac3…@posting.google.com>,
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
david.gr…@telus.net (Dave) wrote:
> I ordered some contacts online using a prescription which is
> OD -2.75 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
> OS -2.25 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
> I had ordered Biomedics 55 because that is what I have had for many
> years. They sent me Biomedics 55, but it is in a flatter box than
> usual, and it says "Premier" on the box and also "Aspheric". I have
> never seen the word "Aspheric" before so I am wondering what it is all
> about, and whether it is safe for me to wear. I’ve always worn
> standard Biomedics 55 in the usual box which is less flat than this
> one, and more square-ish.
> I have read that aspheric is for people with astigmatism? I know that
> I used to have mild astigmatism in both eyes, but a few years ago I
> remember it had gone away in one of my eyes, and had been reduced in
> the other eye. So I don’t think astigmatism is really a problem.
> David
Two issues: If you ordered lenses prescribed as Biometics 55 and they
sent instead Biometics Premier, that’s illegal, at least in the USA . If
you did not provide a doctor’s prescription, that is likewise illegal.
That issue aside, the Premier Aspheric version is, arguably, a better
lens optically, whether or not you have astigmatism. Some people may
find the opposite to be true.
–LB, O.D.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
LarryDoc wrote:
> In article <6510fc8a.0412021305.1aac3…@posting.google.com>,
> david.gr…@telus.net (Dave) wrote:
>>I ordered some contacts online using a prescription which is
>>OD -2.75 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
>>OS -2.25 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
>>I had ordered Biomedics 55 because that is what I have had for many
>>years. They sent me Biomedics 55, but it is in a flatter box than
>>usual, and it says "Premier" on the box and also "Aspheric". I have
>>never seen the word "Aspheric" before so I am wondering what it is all
>>about, and whether it is safe for me to wear. I’ve always worn
>>standard Biomedics 55 in the usual box which is less flat than this
>>one, and more square-ish.
>>I have read that aspheric is for people with astigmatism? I know that
>>I used to have mild astigmatism in both eyes, but a few years ago I
>>remember it had gone away in one of my eyes, and had been reduced in
>>the other eye. So I don’t think astigmatism is really a problem.
>>David
> Two issues: If you ordered lenses prescribed as Biometics 55 and they
> sent instead Biometics Premier, that’s illegal
That’s good to know. It’s hard to communicate with the company because
their 1-888 number works only from the USA and I’m from Canada.
, at least in the USA . If
> you did not provide a doctor’s prescription, that is likewise illegal.
I was willing to provide my official prescription, but it said that for
non-U.S. residents, just fill in XXX for doctor and XXX for doctor’s fax
number.
> That issue aside, the Premier Aspheric version is, arguably, a better
> lens optically, whether or not you have astigmatism. Some people may
> find the opposite to be true.
What exactly do you mean by "some may find the opposite to be true"?
What is different between them, and how could someone find them better
and others find them worse. Is it a discomfort thing? Why would two
people’s opinion differ?
But it is safe to wear these? Any long term side-effects?
Everything else about the prescription matches.
–
David J. Grant
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
LarryDoc wrote:
> In article <6510fc8a.0412021305.1aac3…@posting.google.com>,
> david.gr…@telus.net (Dave) wrote:
>>I ordered some contacts online using a prescription which is
>>OD -2.75 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
>>OS -2.25 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
>>I had ordered Biomedics 55 because that is what I have had for many
>>years. They sent me Biomedics 55, but it is in a flatter box than
>>usual, and it says "Premier" on the box and also "Aspheric". I have
>>never seen the word "Aspheric" before so I am wondering what it is all
>>about, and whether it is safe for me to wear. I’ve always worn
>>standard Biomedics 55 in the usual box which is less flat than this
>>one, and more square-ish.
>>I have read that aspheric is for people with astigmatism? I know that
>>I used to have mild astigmatism in both eyes, but a few years ago I
>>remember it had gone away in one of my eyes, and had been reduced in
>>the other eye. So I don’t think astigmatism is really a problem.
>>David
> Two issues: If you ordered lenses prescribed as Biometics 55 and they
> sent instead Biometics Premier, that’s illegal, at least in the USA . If
> you did not provide a doctor’s prescription, that is likewise illegal.
> That issue aside, the Premier Aspheric version is, arguably, a better
> lens optically, whether or not you have astigmatism. Some people may
> find the opposite to be true.
Will it fit the same? Or should I have refitting? I’m still unsure
whether to return them and make an exchange, entailing a 2 week delay,
or just open them. I’ve already opened the cardboard box on one so it’s
probably too late there.
–
David J. Grant
I ordered some contacts online using a prescription which is
OD -2.75 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
OS -2.25 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
I had ordered Biomedics 55 because that is what I have had for many
years. They sent me Biomedics 55, but it is in a flatter box than
usual, and it says "Premier" on the box and also "Aspheric". I have
never seen the word "Aspheric" before so I am wondering what it is all
about, and whether it is safe for me to wear. I’ve always worn
standard Biomedics 55 in the usual box which is less flat than this
one, and more square-ish.
I have read that aspheric is for people with astigmatism? I know that
I used to have mild astigmatism in both eyes, but a few years ago I
remember it had gone away in one of my eyes, and had been reduced in
the other eye. So I don’t think astigmatism is really a problem.
David
In article <AXSrd.38050$VL6.35095@clgrps13>,
DG <david.grant-NOS…@telus.net> wrote:
So let me see if I have this right. You have a written prescription:
> And my doctor’s prescription (which I have in front of me) says "Fitted
> with: Biomedics 55," "Laboratory: Ocular Sciences." Date of fitting
> Oct./2004, issued and signed by optometrist 11/17/2004.
And you attempt to order a lens based on a picture:
> I ordered Ultraflex 55 online and the picture looked just like my usual
> Biomedics 55 box.
That has a different name in the hope that it’s the correct lens and
then:
>The online dealer says: "According to our
> information, the manufacturer has changed the brand name and packaging.
> The lens is now the Biomedics 55 Premier lens."
Which is actually NOT true. They lied. The sold you what they had in
stock. You have Biomedics 55, which is, in fact the same lens as the
private label Ultraflex which should be replaced with Biomedics 55 and
they send you something different. Clever. But you persist:
> > Did the on-line store check with your prescribing doctor; in the US it is
> > required by law?
> I am from Canada and would have provided my doctor’s information but
> they said not to, unless I are from US.
And when you tried to get hold of them to ask, you couldn’t. Appropriate
health care delivery? Yeah, that’s right. Wearing of contact lenses is
a health issue.
> Anyways, your statement is
> beyond the scope of this conversation and off-topic.
No, it’s not. You’ve just shown the world that ordering contact lenses
from someone on-line that doesn’t give a damn about (forget the law)
doing the right thing creates all sorts of confusion and concerns.
Which, in this case, is probably unfounded, But. for other people, it
could be a big problem if they received "the deal of the day."
> I told them Ultraflex 55, then sent me Biomedics 55 Premier
> (aspherical). What I am asking is: what is the difference?
> I said that I have been using Biomedics 55 for a long time. So that is
> what fits for me. That’s what my doctor prescribes.
And is there some reason why you shouldn’t have what he/she prescribes
and that which you know works for you?
Isn’t that what "prescription" is all about? It’s not about: "try this
one and see if you like it."
–LB, O.D.
Dr Judy wrote:
> "Dave" <david.gr…@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:6510fc8a.0412021305.1aac30c3@posting.google.com…
>>I ordered some contacts online using a prescription which is
>>OD -2.75 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
>>OS -2.25 DIA=14.2 BOZR=8.6
> This is not a contact lens prescription, a contact lens prescription would
> include manufacturer and brand name.
And my doctor’s prescription (which I have in front of me) says "Fitted
with: Biomedics 55," "Laboratory: Ocular Sciences." Date of fitting
Oct./2004, issued and signed by optometrist 11/17/2004.
I ordered Ultraflex 55 online and the picture looked just like my usual
Biomedics 55 box. The online dealer says: "According to our
information, the manufacturer has changed the brand name and packaging.
The lens is now the Biomedics 55 Premier lens." Whatever that
means… They are willing to ship the Biomedics 55 standard though.
But if there is nothing WRONG with the aspheric lens or significantly
different, then why bother returning them? If the difference is as
slight as the difference between a Biomedics 55 lens and a Optimedics 55
lens (ie. no difference), then returning them and waiting 2 weeks is a
waste of my time. Not to mention the fact that the online dealer is
impossible to get a hold of by phone from Canada, and I have no
guarantee they’ll ever give me the exchange or my money back.
I still have one OD and one OS box unopened so I can send those back.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>>I had ordered Biomedics 55 because that is what I have had for many
>>years. They sent me Biomedics 55, but it is in a flatter box than
>>usual, and it says "Premier" on the box and also "Aspheric". I have
>>never seen the word "Aspheric" before so I am wondering what it is all
>>about, and whether it is safe for me to wear. I’ve always worn
>>standard Biomedics 55 in the usual box which is less flat than this
>>one, and more square-ish.
>>I have read that aspheric is for people with astigmatism? I know that
>>I used to have mild astigmatism in both eyes, but a few years ago I
>>remember it had gone away in one of my eyes, and had been reduced in
>>the other eye. So I don’t think astigmatism is really a problem.
> Did the on-line store check with your prescribing doctor; in the US it is
> required by law?
I am from Canada and would have provided my doctor’s information but
they said not to, unless I are from US. Anyways, your statement is
beyond the scope of this conversation and off-topic.
> If they had verified your contact lens prescription, they
> should have sent the correct lenses.
I told them Ultraflex 55, then sent me Biomedics 55 Premier
(aspherical). What I am asking is: what is the difference?
> The only way to tell if the lenses will work for you is to have your contact
> lens fitter check them on your eye.
I said that I have been using Biomedics 55 for a long time. So that is
what fits for me. That’s what my doctor prescribes. I’m just wondering
about Biomedics 55 Aspheric and how they differ from Biomedics 55
standard. I just tried on the Aspheric since I had already opened the
box (when they arrived in the mail, before I noticed they weren’t what I
was used to) and they feel the same as usual.
–
David J. Grant
> I ordered Ultraflex 55 online and the picture looked just like my usual
> Biomedics 55 box. The online dealer says: "According to our information,
> the manufacturer has changed the brand name and packaging. The lens is now
> the Biomedics 55 Premier lens."
Have a look at: http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?page=2_1233.htm. This
states that "During the redesign of the Biomedics 55 lens, the manufacturer
added the asphericity only on the front surface but left the base curve the
same. "Therefore, Biomedics Premiere fits the same as Biomedics 55"
Biomedics 55 Premier
(CooperVision/Ocular Sciences Inc.)
Type: A soft disposable, aspheric lens that corrects for spherical
aberration in both the lens and the eye, allowing for clearer vision. Unlike
its predecessor, the Biomedics 55 spherical lens, the edges of the Biomedics
55 Premier are rounded. Why use this lens: Gregory Forsyth, O.D., of
Raleigh, N.C., helped conduct some preclinical trials. He says the lens
offers better acuity than the previous Biomedics 55 to patients with low
amounts of against-the-rule astigmatism. Although patients did not complain
of discomfort with the prior lens, they reported im-proved comfort with the
Premier version, Dr. Forsyth says.
During the redesign of the Biomedics 55 lens, the manufacturer added the
asphericity only on the front surface but left the base curve the same.
"Therefore, Biomedics Premiere fits the same as Biomedics 55," Dr. Forsyth
says.
Prescription range: -10.00D to +6.00D in (0.50 steps).
Base curves: 8.6mm, 8.9mm
Diameter: 14.2mm.
Wear schedule: Approved for daily and extended wear.
In article <nnWrd.88$AI…@fe39.usenetserver.com>,
"Ian Hodgson Opticians Ltd" <look…@enterprise.net> wrote:
> Hi Larry,
> According to my Ocular Sciences/Coopervision rep recently on this side of
> the pond, from early 2005 Biomedics 55 will NOT be available in the standard
> form it will ONLY be in the aspheric form.
> Whether this is happening with you I don’t know.
Thanks, Ian. I kind of assumed that would be the case. Here, the old
version has been "sold" as "private label" lenses under a variety of
names by the mass marketing retail lens sellers. They offer us docs the
"new and improved" Premium Aspheric version.
Do you have any idea about the OS/Cooper silicone hydrogel? I hear
about Spring 2005, just it time for the return
rumors (or rumours
of Purevision on this side of the pond.
You folks get all the good stuff before we do, so perhaps you might know!
Regards,
Larry
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"james" <ja…@spam.net> wrote in message <news:ia2sd.79837$38.54657@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>…
> > I ordered Ultraflex 55 online and the picture looked just like my usual
> > Biomedics 55 box. The online dealer says: "According to our information,
> > the manufacturer has changed the brand name and packaging. The lens is now
> > the Biomedics 55 Premier lens."
> Have a look at: http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?page=2_1233.htm. This
> states that "During the redesign of the Biomedics 55 lens, the manufacturer
> added the asphericity only on the front surface but left the base curve the
> same. "Therefore, Biomedics Premiere fits the same as Biomedics 55"
> Biomedics 55 Premier
> (CooperVision/Ocular Sciences Inc.)
> Type: A soft disposable, aspheric lens that corrects for spherical
> aberration in both the lens and the eye, allowing for clearer vision. Unlike
> its predecessor, the Biomedics 55 spherical lens, the edges of the Biomedics
> 55 Premier are rounded. Why use this lens: Gregory Forsyth, O.D., of
> Raleigh, N.C., helped conduct some preclinical trials. He says the lens
> offers better acuity than the previous Biomedics 55 to patients with low
> amounts of against-the-rule astigmatism. Although patients did not complain
> of discomfort with the prior lens, they reported im-proved comfort with the
> Premier version, Dr. Forsyth says.
> During the redesign of the Biomedics 55 lens, the manufacturer added the
> asphericity only on the front surface but left the base curve the same.
> "Therefore, Biomedics Premiere fits the same as Biomedics 55," Dr. Forsyth
> says.
> Prescription range: -10.00D to +6.00D in (0.50 steps).
> Base curves: 8.6mm, 8.9mm
> Diameter: 14.2mm.
> Wear schedule: Approved for daily and extended wear.
Thank you James, the factual information you have provided concerning
these lenses is refreshing. Whereas other people were more than happy
to point out what is wrong with ordering lenses over the Internet
whilst ignoring the main crux of my post, you either knew about these
lenses already or you took the time to research them. This is good
news, 1) that these contacts fit the same as the standard Biomedics
55, and also 2) that there are people out there who can ignore for one
second that I ordered these lenses over the Internet and provide an
intelligent answer.
LarryDoc <larry…@nospam.yahoodotcom> wrote in message <news:larrydoc-DBB6E9.23385102122004@news.verizon.net>…
> In article <AXSrd.38050$VL6.35095@clgrps13>,
> DG <david.grant-NOS…@telus.net> wrote:
> So let me see if I have this right. You have a written prescription
> > And my doctor’s prescription (which I have in front of me) says "Fitted
> > with: Biomedics 55," "Laboratory: Ocular Sciences." Date of fitting
> > Oct./2004, issued and signed by optometrist 11/17/2004.
> And you attempt to order a lens based on a picture:
Yes, I said it matched the picture but I did not say I ordered it
"based on a picture" ONLY. It was called Ultraflex 55 and it said
that it was identical to the Biomedics 55. Which it is.
> > I ordered Ultraflex 55 online and the picture looked just like my usual
> > Biomedics 55 box.
> That has a different name in the hope that it’s the correct lens and
> then:
> >The online dealer says: "According to our
> > information, the manufacturer has changed the brand name and packaging.
> > The lens is now the Biomedics 55 Premier lens."
> Which is actually NOT true. They lied. The sold you what they had in
> stock.
True. If I order a Biomedics 55 or equivalent lens and they are out
of stock, and give me another lens which is equivalent, then I see no
problem with that.
> You have Biomedics 55, which is, in fact the same lens as the
> private label Ultraflex which should be replaced with Biomedics 55 and
> they send you something different.
No so different. I ordered Biomedics/Ultraflex 55 (same thing) and
they sent me Biomedics 55 Premier. You still haven’t answered me what
the difference is between the two lenses with any scientific data or
facts, although you purport that they are "different" and that I was
given the wrong lenses. Perhaps not the EXACT lens I ordered but
maybe it is no so different, that I can keep them rather than doing an
exchange.
> Clever. But you persist:
> > > Did the on-line store check with your prescribing doctor; in the US it is
> > > required by law?
> > I am from Canada and would have provided my doctor’s information but
> > they said not to, unless I are from US.
> And when you tried to get hold of them to ask, you couldn’t. Appropriate
> health care delivery?
No, but appropriate enough for a business. Businesses don’t have to
act "appropriately." And in the U.S., private health care is common,
so clearly health care is not always delivered appropriately either.
Buying contacts is not heath care delivery. It was a customer making
a business transaction. "Buyer beware."
> Yeah, that’s right. Wearing of contact lenses is
> a health issue.
Sure, but so is buying contact solution from the drug store and I’ve
done some damage in that respect in the past by using the wrong
solution. I don’t understand your argument that it is a health
issue…so what? Optometrists can screw up too. Errors are not
confined to the world of internet shopping.
> > Anyways, your statement is
> > beyond the scope of this conversation and off-topic.
> No, it’s not. You’ve just shown the world that ordering contact lenses
> from someone on-line that doesn’t give a damn about (forget the law)
> doing the right thing creates all sorts of confusion and concerns.
> Which, in this case, is probably unfounded, But. for other people, it
> could be a big problem if they received "the deal of the day."
True. Do I stand on a soap box and tell people to buy contacts on the
internet? I tried ordering my contacts online because I’ve been
using this contact for over 5 years and had a 33% savings with the
great US-CAD exchange rate. I was not shipped an entirely different
contact. But I will buy again, and next time I will try to get
spherical unless my optometrist says that it doesn’t matter. And I
WILL be going to the optometrist before then as I am due for a
biannual full eye health exam.
> > I told them Ultraflex 55, then sent me Biomedics 55 Premier
> > (aspherical). What I am asking is: what is the difference?
> > I said that I have been using Biomedics 55 for a long time. So that is
> > what fits for me. That’s what my doctor prescribes.
> And is there some reason why you shouldn’t have what he/she prescribes
> and that which you know works for you?
No, I should have what he prescribed for me, which was Biomedics 55,
as per my prescription dated November 2004. They shipped me Biomedics
55 with a little bonus thing called "aspherical." I’m just trying to
get to the bottom of what aspherical means. Hey, maybe my old ones
were "aspherical" before as well, but that it just wasn’t written on
the box. Or maybe aspherical is just a marketting gadget and all
lenses are really aspherical. Clearly all lenses in the world are
aspherical because you can never make a perfect sphere (you can only
make one to some precision).
> Isn’t that what "prescription" is all about? It’s not about: "try this
> one and see if you like it."
It kind of is "try this one and see if you like it." You should have
seen what I went through when I first got contacts and my optometrist
was trying out all sorts of RGP lenses. Every week he’d give me some
new trial lens to try out. Clearly fitting lenses is not rocket
science and having the wrong lens in your eye for a week is not
life-threatening or vision-threatening. I’ve done more damage to my
eye with Visine alone than I have in 10 years of wearing contacts. If
you want to hear more about what I think of Visine, that’s a whole
other story. Well, those were trials no prescriptions so I’m
comparing apples and oranges.
OK. One more time, Dave.
In article <6510fc8a.0412031646.6be0d…@posting.google.com>,
david.gr…@telus.net (Dave) wrote:
> If I order a Biomedics 55 or equivalent lens and they are out
> of stock, and give me another lens which is equivalent, then I see no
> problem with that.
Well I do. You should get what you order and the only person who is
justified in altering that order is your doctor, not you and not some
stock clerk.
> I ordered Biomedics/Ultraflex 55 (same thing) and
> they sent me Biomedics 55 Premier. You still haven’t answered me what
> the difference is between the two lenses with any scientific data or
> facts, although you purport that they are "different" and that I was
> given the wrong lenses.
I wrote, if you look at my post, that the aspheric version is for many
people a superior product. That means a better choice. You lucked out.
Some people aren’t so lucky with the stock clerk’s choice.
> > And when you tried to get hold of them to ask, you couldn’t. Appropriate
> > health care delivery?
> No, but appropriate enough for a business. Businesses don’t have to
> act "appropriately." And in the U.S., private health care is common,
> so clearly health care is not always delivered appropriately either.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Canada, U.S. or anywhere else. No one has the
right to act to inappropriately and it is not acceptable to screw up
health care delivery. It’s sad that people are getting so used to being
screwed that they accept it and feel special when things go right.
> Buying contacts is not heath care delivery. It was a customer making
> a business transaction. "Buyer beware."
So you’re back to it’s OK for businesses (and I include health care
providers) to act irresponsibly.
> > Yeah, that’s right. Wearing of contact lenses is
> > a health issue.
> Sure, but so is buying contact solution from the drug store and I’ve
> done some damage in that respect in the past by using the wrong
> solution. I don’t understand your argument that it is a health
> issue…so what? Optometrists can screw up too. Errors are not
> confined to the world of internet shopping.
And it is still not acceptable to screw up or to take advantage of the
fact that people are accepting that scew-ups are just part of doing
business.
> > And is there some reason why you shouldn’t have what he/she prescribes
> > and that which you know works for you?
> No, I should have what he prescribed for me, which was Biomedics 55,
> as per my prescription dated November 2004. They shipped me Biomedics
> 55 with a little bonus thing called "aspherical." I’m just trying to
> get to the bottom of what aspherical means. Hey, maybe my old ones
> were "aspherical" before as well, but that it just wasn’t written on
> the box. Or maybe aspherical is just a marketting gadget and all
> lenses are really aspherical.
As I made clear, aspheric is actually a better optical design. Usually,
but not always. The trick is, the eccentricity value (the degree of
flattening from center to the edge) creates different optical attributes
and what is good for you might not be so for someone else. It’s not a
marketing gimmick, it is a positive selling attribute. Again, for most
people, depending upon the degree of aspheric optics. (And, by the way,
that also applies to spectacle lenses.)
> It kind of is "try this one and see if you like it." You should have
> seen what I went through when I first got contacts and my optometrist
> was trying out all sorts of RGP lenses. Every week he’d give me some
> new trial lens to try out. Clearly fitting lenses is not rocket
> science and having the wrong lens in your eye for a week is not
> life-threatening or vision-threatening.
No, it is not rocket science, but it is physical science and has very
specific, measurable physiological consequences—even when fitted
correctly. And you are wrong. Improperly fitted contact lenses can
indeed compromise the health of the cornea and can indeed cause
vision-threatening cellular disruption and infection. Most often it
hurts enough that the wearer responds to the pain or discomfort before
there is permanent damage. But not always. Bad things do happen. And it
doesn’t have to be that way.
> I’ve done more damage to my
> eye with Visine alone than I have in 10 years of wearing contacts.
I wouldn’t be proud of that.
OK. I’m done. Good luck to you.
–LB, O.D.
Hi Larry,
.
> Do you have any idea about the OS/Cooper silicone hydrogel? I hear
about Spring 2005, just it time for the return
> rumors (or rumours
> of Purevision on this side of the pond.
It may have been mentioned but I was more interested in the change in the 55
and the amalgamation between the two companies ie just when does my account
get cocked up when the accounting systems come together!
> You folks get all the good stuff before we do, so perhaps you might know!
Glad we’re sometimes ahead of the Good O’le US of A
it gets boring the number of times we get told ‘they must have better in the
States’
Regards
Ian
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote
> So what you are saying is I’ll have to have very thick glasses to achieve
> any effect?
Probably, yes, thick on the same side of each lens (left side, left eye and
left side, right eye).
> Not too far, it just depends. The main problem I have is having to turn
> my head when I read. This might be caused by a combination of nystagmus
> and
> myopia. I tend to have to get close to things to read.
It’s possible that converging your eyes to see single at near helps suppress
your nystagmus, in addition to the effect of looking to one side.
Prism will allow you to hold the book straight ahead, while requiring you to
look to one side. The result is a more natural posture, maybe drawing less
attention, but it would be hard to walk around or drive a car with that much
prism unless you wear it constantly and adapt completely.
> I’d guess it’s about 15 degrees or less.
That’s a lot more than "ordinary" prism. It’d be noticeable to anyone who
looks close at the glasses.
-MT
The amount of prism needed to simulate your null point could be 50 or 100
times the "ordinary" amount used to help binocular alignment, so don’t count
on a very cosmetic result.
How far to one side do you have to look to achieve a relative null point?
If it’s more than the angle from 12:00 to 1:00 on the clockface, more than
30 degrees, prism may cause too much curved distortion and chromatic
aberration and you may decide that simply turning your head works better.
I’m sorry I misunderstood you; I didn’t realize your purpose for using
prism.
-MT
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QOMrd.83642$jE2.81551@bignews4.bellsouth.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:XIMrd.1564$714.68@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net…
>> Prism can be added to any lens material. It doesn’t necessarily add
> weight,
>> since one side of the lens is made a little thicker, but the other side
>> might well be thinner.
>> How it works for you will depend more on the frame, and the distance
> between
>> your pupils, than on which material you use. Wide frames with narrow
>> pupil
>> distance and "base-out" prism will make the outer edges noticeably
> thicker.
>> Base-in prism might actually make them lighter.
> I have nystagmus and I was considering this approach. I’ve read about
> it
> on the web, but never had a doctor suggest it to me. I have null points
> and I am tired of having to move my head to read. Visual acuity is not an
> issue, for me this is a quality of life issue. I enjoy reading but the
> way
> I current read is tiring.
> Who should I go to, to get prism glasses fitted? Will any optician do?
> A "low vision" specialist, or will I need to go to a AFB assosciated
> low-vision specialist?
> I like the smaller frames that became fashionable a few years ago. For
> one thing the glasses are smaller and they look better (it’s a wierd trend
> that some of the thick frame lenses are comming back into fashion,
> especially for women). I’d like to not add alot of weight to my glasses.
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message <news:HxMrd.83429$jE2.55575@bignews4.bellsouth.net>…
> How much more would a pair of glasses with prisms in them weigh? Are they
> restricted to glass or certain kinds of plastic? I have never seen
> prismatic glasses, and I want to learn more about them, but I’m having
> trouble finding information on the web.
Hello
I have had prism glasses for over 10 years now and still drive during
the day.
I was not able to drive for a year after having nuclear cataract
surgery at age 40 to remove both natural lenses followed by 3 detached
retina operations including 2 scleral buckle implants. Since I don’t
have natural lenses, my glasses are thicker to start with. Then when
I had to have prism added to get rid of serious double vision (I saw
two cars coming at me for every one in front of me). First the vision
specialist Dr. Hess gave me temporary prism glasses where he stuck
prism lense on the back of my regular thick glasses. This is a good
way to try they out and see if you think you can adjust to them which
may take a while. Then I had my first pair made of glass and they
were thick and heavy but they really worked so it was worth it to me
to get used to them.
Since then lense making has improved and I now have a pair that is
much lighter and thiner. But they are expensive to make ($300-$400 in
my case) and you may want to get recommendation for optical specialist
from your doctor.
My prism glasses were made by Beach Optical here in St. Pete who was
recommended by Dr. Hess for my special requirements. Here are links
to references:
http://www.healthcarenearyou.com/doctors/fl/st-petersburg-doctor.html
Hess J Bruce MD
880 6th Street South
St Petersburg FLORIDA 33701
727 892 4393
http://www.google.com/local?hl=en&lr=&q=beach+optical&near=St+Petersb...
Beach Drive Optical
(727) 823-2773
238 Beach Dr NE
St Petersburg, FL 33701
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HxMrd.83429$jE2.55575@bignews4.bellsouth.net…
> How much more would a pair of glasses with prisms in them weigh? Are
> they
> restricted to glass or certain kinds of plastic? I have never seen
> prismatic glasses, and I want to learn more about them, but I’m having
> trouble finding information on the web.
Prism can be added to any lens material. It doesn’t necessarily add weight,
since one side of the lens is made a little thicker, but the other side
might well be thinner.
How it works for you will depend more on the frame, and the distance between
your pupils, than on which material you use. Wide frames with narrow pupil
distance and "base-out" prism will make the outer edges noticeably thicker.
Base-in prism might actually make them lighter.
Vertical prism (base-up or base-down) may be hard to notice when the
vertical dimension of the lenses is shorter than the horizontal.
Small amounts of prism, like 1 to 3 prism diopters, won’t make much
difference. To minimize the effect, choose a frame with each lens
approximately centered over your pupils.
-MT
How much more would a pair of glasses with prisms in them weigh? Are they
restricted to glass or certain kinds of plastic? I have never seen
prismatic glasses, and I want to learn more about them, but I’m having
trouble finding information on the web.
in article HxMrd.83429$jE2.55…@bignews4.bellsouth.net, magnulus at
magnu…@bellsouth.net wrote on 12/2/04 2:20 PM:
> How much more would a pair of glasses with prisms in them weigh? Are they
> restricted to glass or certain kinds of plastic? I have never seen
> prismatic glasses, and I want to learn more about them, but I’m having
> trouble finding information on the web.
Although not directly answering to your question, adding prism to your
lenses is the equivalent of decentering for single vision glasses. That may
not apply if there is little spherical correction, because the lens cannot
be decentered enough.
Bill
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:JjSrd.2189$Va5.52@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net…
> Prism will allow you to hold the book straight ahead, while requiring you
to
> look to one side.
Hold on, I thought prisms would allow a person to read straight ahead.,
to place the null point in line with the head. Why would one be required to
look to one side?
> The result is a more natural posture, maybe drawing less
> attention, but it would be hard to walk around or drive a car with that
much
> prism unless you wear it constantly and adapt completely.
Why would it be hard to adapt to walking around?
I only have a learners permit and I do not plan to drive, at least with
the way my current perscription is. From the eye charts, I see about
20/60-20/70 with a null gaze. Also, my binocular vision isn’t constant. I
have alot of anxiety driving and I’ve had a few near misses.
> > I’d guess it’s about 15 degrees or less.
> That’s a lot more than "ordinary" prism. It’d be noticeable to anyone who
> looks close at the glasses.
So they will look like "coke bottle glasses"? I might be able to live
with that. I just don’t like dealing with glasses sliding down my nose all
the time- that I’ll have a harder time living with.
Going to doctors as a kid alot (for other problems, like a heart defect
that was repaired), an optometrist all the time, etc., has really done a
head trip on me. And living alone at home with parents is hard too.
BTW, I also have small epicanthic folds and my eyes are somewhat light
sensitive (I’m not an albino, though, I have my grandmother’s light olive
German skin and brown hair). Nobody in my family has epicanthic folds. I
haven’t checked my paternal grandmother or grandfather (all I would have are
photos), but the rest of them don’t. I think this might be part of some
kind of syndrome, but my IQ is above average and I don’t have webbed
fingers, etc. But the congenital heart defect, epicanthic folds, and
nystagmus fit in with a number of syndromes.
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:21Prd.1847$Va5.1306@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net…
> The amount of prism needed to simulate your null point could be 50 or 100
> times the "ordinary" amount used to help binocular alignment, so don’t
count
> on a very cosmetic result.
So what you are saying is I’ll have to have very thick glasses to achieve
any effect?
> How far to one side do you have to look to achieve a relative null point?
Not too far, it just depends. The main problem I have is having to turn
my head when I read. This might be caused by a combination of nystagmus and
myopia. I tend to have to get close to things to read.
> If it’s more than the angle from 12:00 to 1:00 on the clockface, more than
> 30 degrees, prism may cause too much curved distortion and chromatic
> aberration and you may decide that simply turning your head works better.
I’d guess it’s about 15 degrees or less.
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:21Prd.1847$Va5.1306@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> The amount of prism needed to simulate your null point could be 50 or
> 100 times the "ordinary" amount used to help binocular alignment, so
> don’t count on a very cosmetic result.
> How far to one side do you have to look to achieve a relative null
> point?
> If it’s more than the angle from 12:00 to 1:00 on the clockface, more
> than 30 degrees, prism may cause too much curved distortion and
> chromatic aberration and you may decide that simply turning your head
> works better.
> I’m sorry I misunderstood you; I didn’t realize your purpose for using
> prism.
> -MT
Often, when a person has an eccentric null, they have a vergence null that
works even better. Base-outs might be a better solution, with some added
minus for the additional accomodation.
Scott
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote
> Hold on, I thought prisms would allow a person to read straight ahead.,
> to place the null point in line with the head. Why would one be required
> to
> look to one side?
Your null point is a position of gaze. Without prism, you accomplish this by
turning your head. You could hold your head straight and move the book
instead, or use prism to move the image to that position for you.
> Why would it be hard to adapt to walking around?
Because everything you see will appear to be 15 degrees away from where it
really is. It’s reasonable to think you could adapt (there’s a famous
experiment where subjects learned to adapt wearing prism that flipped
everything upside down) but it would "take some getting used to." It might
be more reasonable to have two pair – prism glasses for reading and without
prism for everything else. Or you might decide it’s a waste of effort, if
the only benefit is sitting straighter. Next time you get your eyes checked,
ask the doctor to tape a couple of trial prism lenses onto your current
glasses.
> So they will look like "coke bottle glasses"? I might be able to live
> with that. I just don’t like dealing with glasses sliding down my nose
> all
> the time- that I’ll have a harder time living with.
I’m pretty sure they’d be heavier, tho maybe not much.
> fingers, etc. But the congenital heart defect, epicanthic folds, and
> nystagmus fit in with a number of syndromes.
Yup.. nystagmus is often accompanied by other birth anomalies, including
above-average IQ.
-MT
"Don Higgins" <d…@higgins.net> wrote
> I had to have prism added to get rid of serious double vision (I saw
> two cars coming at me for every one in front of me).
Don, Magnulus is talking about using prism for a very different purpose, in
much larger amounts, to shift his position of gaze.
> First the vision
> specialist Dr. Hess gave me temporary prism glasses where he stuck
> prism lense on the back of my regular thick glasses.
Excellent suggestion.
-MT
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:lUSrd.83806$jE2.76223@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> Hold on, I thought prisms would allow a person to read straight
> ahead.,
> to place the null point in line with the head. Why would one be
> required to look to one side
With the prisms, you need to move your eyes to the side to see straight
ahead. You eliminated the head turn, but not the eye turn.
That’s if both bases are in the same direction. With both bases facing
out, you need to look near to see far.
What city are you in? Maybe I can suggest a doctor.
SCott
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:2b2sd.84037$jE2.17384@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Scott Seidman" <namdiestt…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95B459F0E67A5scottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4…
>> With the prisms, you need to move your eyes to the side to see
>> straight ahead. You eliminated the head turn, but not the eye turn.
> Sounds wierd. So basicly it’s shifting around the image? That
> doesn’t
> really sound like a great solution, though it might be better than
> nothing. Does wearing prism glasses cause headaches when not wearing
> them?
> How would this affect monocular vision, since I don’t always see
> with both
> eyes? I also have strabismus that alternates depending on what I am
> doing. I do have the ability to see stereoscopicly but it comes and
> goes. Ocassionally I find the need to wear an eyepatch over my left
> eye for a few hours a day if I’m reading or playing games. But my
> eyes aren’t really equal- my left eye is nearsighted but better at up
> close stuff, whereas my right eye is alot better in distance acuity
> (when wearing my glasses). Perhaps I need a new perscription but the
> last two times I’ve gone for a checkup they haven’t changed the
> perscription any, despite the fact I still feel like one eye is
> fuzzier than the other.
The problems with stereo vision would probably mean that base-out prisms
won’t work for you. Your situation actually sounds very complex.
>> That’s if both bases are in the same direction. With both bases
>> facing out, you need to look near to see far.
>> What city are you in? Maybe I can suggest a doctor.
> I live in Orlando
Sorry, don’t know anyone there.
> Have you heard of using high minus contacts combined with high plus
> lenses
> as a treatment for nystagmus? Does this work with aquired nystagmus
> only, or congenital nystagmus?
The high-minus contacts with high-plus lenses are for acquired nystagmus
(and not a very viable treatment, either, because the lenses are
uncomfortable). What this method does is optically stabilize images on
the back of the eye, even when your eye is moving. While this seems to
be exactly what you want to do, it really isn’t. Your brain "expects"
your eyes to be wiggling, and exactly compensates so that the whole world
doesn’t appear to you to be shaking all the time (a condition called
oscillopsia). Because your brain expects this, if you stabilize your
image while your eye is moving, the lens trick you describe actually
causes oscillopsia. If you have acquired nystagmus, the world appears to
be bouncing around all the time, and this stablization trick works.
Interestingly enough, there are patients here and there who develop an
acquired nystagmus on top of the congenital nystagmus, and those folks
experience oscillopsia.
Scott
"Scott Seidman" <namdiestt…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B459F0E67A5scottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4…
> With the prisms, you need to move your eyes to the side to see straight
> ahead. You eliminated the head turn, but not the eye turn.
Sounds wierd. So basicly it’s shifting around the image? That doesn’t
really sound like a great solution, though it might be better than nothing.
Does wearing prism glasses cause headaches when not wearing them?
How would this affect monocular vision, since I don’t always see with both
eyes? I also have strabismus that alternates depending on what I am doing.
I do have the ability to see stereoscopicly but it comes and goes.
Ocassionally I find the need to wear an eyepatch over my left eye for a few
hours a day if I’m reading or playing games. But my eyes aren’t really
equal- my left eye is nearsighted but better at up close stuff, whereas my
right eye is alot better in distance acuity (when wearing my glasses).
Perhaps I need a new perscription but the last two times I’ve gone for a
checkup they haven’t changed the perscription any, despite the fact I still
feel like one eye is fuzzier than the other.
> That’s if both bases are in the same direction. With both bases facing
> out, you need to look near to see far.
> What city are you in? Maybe I can suggest a doctor.
I live in Orlando
Have you heard of using high minus contacts combined with high plus lenses
as a treatment for nystagmus? Does this work with aquired nystagmus only,
or congenital nystagmus?
"Scott Seidman" <namdiestt…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B4921D27AC5scottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4…
> The problems with stereo vision would probably mean that base-out prisms
> won’t work for you. Your situation actually sounds very complex.
Yeah. I suspected the base-out prisms might not work based on earlier
descriptions. The optometrist a few years ago, when I asked about these,
said he didn’t think it was a good idea, though I’ve forgotten his exact
reasoning. Perhaps he was right.
The underlying problems I have are moderate myopia and optic nerve
hypoplasia. I probably should have mentioned the ONH to start out. Eye
doctors have told me the nystagmus is more of a symptom of optic-nerve
hypoplasia, and the strabismus is likely related as well. The myopia at one
time was mild, in fact I spent a few years as a kid not wearing glasses at
all. Today, my perscription has gone up alot (I forgot what it actually
is), but it’s weaker than my parents, both of whom are myopic. My brother
also finally aquired myopia a few years ago.
I suspect all the eye disorders I have complicates fitting with a good
perscription.
> The high-minus contacts with high-plus lenses are for acquired nystagmus
I suspected that too.
> Interestingly enough, there are patients here and there who develop an
> acquired nystagmus on top of the congenital nystagmus, and those folks
> experience oscillopsia.
What about drugs to control nystagmus? I have heard of experimental use
of anti-convulsants, but is this for aquired nystagmus only? Years ago I
took depakene (valproic acid, anticonvulsant) for an unrelated health
problem. My mom commented she thought it reduced my nystagmus, but maybe
her saying that was just wishful thinking on her part.
In the end, a new set of optic nerves and eyes would not hurt. I have
read they have used stem cells and cloning in frogs to transplant eyes into
a frog and the frog could distinguish light from darkness. So who knows. I
do support research on human cloning and stem cells, that’s one thing I feel
quite strongly about and why I did not vote for President George W. Bush
(because he wants a ban on human cloning in the US, and pushing a ban on
human cloning, including therepeutic uses, in the UN). I don’t really hold
out that kind of hope for myself but I do think it is something that should
be researched because it stands to benefit all sorts of people and problems.
A bunch of reactionary demagogues have no right to step in and decide it for
everybody else, that’s my feeling.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:59:08 GMT, "Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Don Higgins" <d…@higgins.net> wrote
>> I had to have prism added to get rid of serious double vision (I saw
>> two cars coming at me for every one in front of me).
>Don, Magnulus is talking about using prism for a very different purpose, in
>much larger amounts, to shift his position of gaze.
>> First the vision
>> specialist Dr. Hess gave me temporary prism glasses where he stuck
>> prism lense on the back of my regular thick glasses.
>Excellent suggestion.
>-MT
These press on prisms are called Fresnel, pronounced with a silent "S". I
believe they are made by 3M. Used by clinicians to determine the efficacy of
prescribed prism and the only way to get significant amounts of prism in front
of the eyes.
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
rob…@execpc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
– Richard Feynman
It is true that as you age your pupils tend to get smaller. They would have
to get quite small indeed to be the sole cause of the diminished vision you
are claiming. Do you have a spectacle correction that you are wearing? Did
your eye doctor say anything about cataracts?
Don’t be alarmed about small pupil size. It’s quite common. In actuality
small pupils can provide quite sharp vision as they function almost like a
pinhole camera.
Why don’t you hold a ruler up to your eye and look at the scale in the
mirror. Then tell us approximately what the pupil size you measured on
yourself in bright room light and also in dim light. That would be helpful.
"OldMaidButOK" <oldmaidbu…@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20041201223730.06368.00001183@mb-m18.wmconnect.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> When I turned 50 I noticed the world growing dimmer and darker. I could
> not see
> nearly as well, in the dark, as I had always done in (younger) life. I
> began to
> take supplements and eat green leafy vegetables, and that did help. But my
> eyes
> still are nothing like when I was just a few years younger.
> I went for an eye checkup. Had her look deep into recesses of my eyes, and
> to
> dilate them. The doc didn’t really want to do this, mainly, it seemed,
> cause it
> just took too long for her (to make money doing). But, I had her dilate my
> eyes
> and take a good inspection.
> She said, "Your eyes are fine. Nothing out of the ordinary." I said, "why
> is my
> night vision getting bad?" She told me it is because my pupils are
> (staying)
> smaller and that is a natural occurence in aging. The idea being: cause my
> pupils don’t open up and dilate as much, they cannot/do not take in as
> much
> light.
> I look in the mirror and…yes, my pupils do seem quite small to me. But,
> I
> wonder if there is more to my condition? At age 50, do one’s eyes just
> shrink
> and refuse to open up (as much) in dark light? Is this condition of having
> small pupils associated with any other disease or syndrome? My checking
> around
> on the net leads me to the conclusion that this is typical with people
> taking
> drugs especially opiates or narcotics. But I do not take and have not
> taken (or
> smoked, etc) any sort of drugs or narcotics. Something else must be at
> work,
> here.
Smaller pupils are one possible cause. Dilated eye examinations have become
standard and a doctor who is hesitant to dilate might also be hesitant to
work very hard at investigating or explaining other causes for your problem.
Other common causes include
-decrease in retinal contrast sensitivity
-delayed glare recovery
-increased haze and loss of transparency in the crystalline lens
-vitreous collapse and floaters
All of these are pretty normal and all of them have no practical treatment.
Some others are not "normal" but still might be unavoidable or untreatable,
mostly neurological problems including toxic episodes (alcohol, tobacco,
environmental poisons) and subtle optic nerve disease.
If small pupils are the problem, there’s a tradeoff – people with small
pupils have less trouble with presbyopia and other refractive problems
because (for focusing purposes) small pupils work better than large.
Basically, it comes with having birthdays.
-MT
"OldMaidButOK" <oldmaidbu…@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20041201223730.06368.00001183@mb-m18.wmconnect.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> When I turned 50 I noticed the world growing dimmer and darker. I could
> not see
> nearly as well, in the dark, as I had always done in (younger) life. I
> began to
> take supplements and eat green leafy vegetables, and that did help. But my
> eyes
> still are nothing like when I was just a few years younger.
> I went for an eye checkup. Had her look deep into recesses of my eyes, and
> to
> dilate them. The doc didn’t really want to do this, mainly, it seemed,
> cause it
> just took too long for her (to make money doing). But, I had her dilate my
> eyes
> and take a good inspection.
> She said, "Your eyes are fine. Nothing out of the ordinary." I said, "why
> is my
> night vision getting bad?" She told me it is because my pupils are
> (staying)
> smaller and that is a natural occurence in aging. The idea being: cause my
> pupils don’t open up and dilate as much, they cannot/do not take in as
> much
> light.
> I look in the mirror and…yes, my pupils do seem quite small to me. But,
> I
> wonder if there is more to my condition? At age 50, do one’s eyes just
> shrink
> and refuse to open up (as much) in dark light? Is this condition of having
> small pupils associated with any other disease or syndrome? My checking
> around
> on the net leads me to the conclusion that this is typical with people
> taking
> drugs especially opiates or narcotics. But I do not take and have not
> taken (or
> smoked, etc) any sort of drugs or narcotics. Something else must be at
> work,
> here.
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in message <news:%uzrd.1258$Va5.925@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>…
> Smaller pupils are one possible cause. Dilated eye examinations have become
> standard and a doctor who is hesitant to dilate might also be hesitant to
> work very hard at investigating or explaining other causes for your problem.
> Other common causes include
> -decrease in retinal contrast sensitivity
> -delayed glare recovery
> -increased haze and loss of transparency in the crystalline lens
> -vitreous collapse and floaters
> All of these are pretty normal and all of them have no practical treatment.
Again we come across to the absolute incompetence of the competent
people (professionals and medical men…).
Now you can overcome your problem very easily, being a mere mental
problem due to strain to see.
Just paste a Snellen chart up on the wall, well lighted.
Practice few minutes per day with each eye separately, and with both
eyes, to see what you can without straining.
If you wear glasses, you must discard them and progress will be
difficult in the beginning.
"OldMaidButOK" <oldmaidbu…@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:20041201223730.06368.00001183@mb-m18.wmconnect.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> When I turned 50 I noticed the world growing dimmer and darker. I could
> not see
> nearly as well, in the dark, as I had always done in (younger) life. I
> began to
> take supplements and eat green leafy vegetables, and that did help. But my
> eyes
> still are nothing like when I was just a few years younger.
> I went for an eye checkup. Had her look deep into recesses of my eyes, and
> to
> dilate them. The doc didn’t really want to do this, mainly, it seemed,
> cause it
> just took too long for her (to make money doing). But, I had her dilate my
> eyes
> and take a good inspection.
> She said, "Your eyes are fine. Nothing out of the ordinary." I said, "why
> is my
> night vision getting bad?" She told me it is because my pupils are
> (staying)
> smaller and that is a natural occurence in aging. The idea being: cause my
> pupils don’t open up and dilate as much, they cannot/do not take in as
> much
> light.
> I look in the mirror and…yes, my pupils do seem quite small to me. But,
> I
> wonder if there is more to my condition? At age 50, do one’s eyes just
> shrink
> and refuse to open up (as much) in dark light? Is this condition of having
> small pupils associated with any other disease or syndrome? My checking
> around
> on the net leads me to the conclusion that this is typical with people
> taking
> drugs especially opiates or narcotics. But I do not take and have not
> taken (or
> smoked, etc) any sort of drugs or narcotics. Something else must be at
> work,
> here.
Unfortunately, birthdays are at work. Besides smaller pupils and slower
reaction of the nerve/muscles that serve the pupil, the eye loses
sensitivity to dim light and is slower to recover from glare with every
passing decade. Normal aging changes to the lens of the eye as well as
aging of the retina are likely to blame. A diet high in dark green
vegetables, a lifetime of protection from ultraviolet light and a history of
not smoking will help, supplements may be of no or mininal help.
Dr Judy
"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga…@agora.it> wrote in message
news:c72b1499.0412020950.5cab1940@posting.google.com…
> Just paste a Snellen chart up on the wall, well lighted.
> Practice few minutes per day with each eye separately, and with both
> eyes, to see what you can without straining.
> If you wear glasses, you must discard them and progress will be
> difficult in the beginning.
Whan an idiot. Plonk.
"magnulus" <magnu…@bellsouth.net> wrote in message <news:7EOrd.83736$jE2.43056@bignews4.bellsouth.net>…
> Whan an idiot. Plonk.
Strange verses indeed, are you a buffalo or a donkey?