I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics2 mins ago
No best answer has yet been selected by plop1389. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.There are exercises you can do to help maintain your eyesight, like any part of the body it needs to be exercised properly to stay healthy and functional. I'm not sure if there are exercises that can actually improve sight though.
All good opticians/eye doctors will be able to give you different exercises depending on what your eyes need.
It depends on what you're trying to improve/correct! For all-round health, try bilberry, betacarotene, omega oils or vitamins ACE (sounds like overkill if you're going to take supplements - to be honest, if you eat a balanced diet you should get most of the recommended daily levels of all of those from your food, although in certain eye conditions extra may be recommended). If you have a particular vision problem there may or may not be a suitable exercise to help.
As always, I have to say attend your local optometrist for a comprehensive eye exam - they'll be able to advise you on specifics.
Many people qualify for free eye tests on the NHS, and otherwise I believe in England and Wales Dolland & Aitcheson are doing free tests with a voucher you print off from the Internet. Before anyone asks, no I don't work for them, I work for an independent group in Scotland!
And Slimfandango, please please please do not persist with that old hairy chestnut about specs making your eyes worse.......if I had 10 pence for every person that told me that gem while I was testing their eyes, I wouldn't actually need to work for a living any more - but IT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!
I think you'll find if you read the article that no change in refractive error was found - their findings are purely down to perceptual adaptation. This improvement is stated as 6/35 to 6/20 (which most people will be more familiar to as being the difference between being able to read roughly the fourth line out of twelve on a letter chart at the opticians, as opposed to reading the second one), so hardly a case for throwing away your specs, now is it?
Also a suspiciously small sample size of 22 people.....not what the statistics buff would call clinically significant?
But hey, who am I to contradict the AAO journal. (I'm sure you'll have an answer for that one too, Slimfandango!)
I feel that I may be wasting my admittedly poor typing skills on this, as with any other topic on which I hold an opposing view to you; so from now on I'll just read the eyerelated q's on the AB instead of getting in your way!Pax.
I think it would have been gracious to admit you were wrong, given that I made a specific reply to a specific question, and you then declared that my answer was NOT TRUE (sic).
As far as your retort is concerned:
-"no change in refractive error, purely down to perceptual adaptation." So what? A huge amount of work is done by the visual system beyond the optic nerve, this can't be discounted just because it does not physically handle the light. Many people's eyes are perfectly capable of producing 20/20 vision, but the system could correct this itself if only the visual cortex would pass on the right signals to allow the muscles around the eye to get the eye's own lense to function properly.
I was answering a question about improving eyesight, not curing defective vision, 6/35 to 6/20 is a pretty big unaided leap.
Your analysis of the statistics is wildly off mark, the term you are looking for is 'statistically significant', and the study was 'statistically significant', even with 22 subjects. There have been others (I have studied with the person who did the first one), which had a bit more power.
You did, after all, ask me to "please please please do not persist with that old hairy chestnut about specs making your eyes worse". Probably best to have a secure grasp of the facts before trashing a post.