To ask if not wearing glasses when you need makes you eyes worse

[User40407]

I’ve always told my ds1 who wears glasses that he should always wear to prevent his eyes getting worse. I’ve just read something that says wearing glasses only corrects your sight when you are wearing them and not wearing them has no impact on your eye sight either way. Aibu to ask if this is true?

I am approaching 50 and have never had any vision/sight issues. Never needed glasses, despite working in a profession where I stare at screens all day. In the last year or so however I have noticed I am finding it harder (sometimes 'hard' if tired) to focus on reading written words close up. Eg struggle to read a menu etc. I used to do cross stitch that has very small type font instructions and I now have to take a picture on my phone and magnify it. I've had to magnify the font on my kindle up one notch. I have always suffered from ocular migraines, but they are increasing in frequency. The glare while driving at night has started to bother me.

I accept I've had a good run of "perfect" vision and am probably just have age related long sightedness. But I can still manage ok without glasses. So should I start wearing reading glasses or not?

I worked there for a month and I left because of the way that manager spoke to other staff. He owned the business and employed optometrists. I was a receptionist. It has since closed down. I found it concerning too, it made me wary of going to independents who might pull that kind of stunt. I can’t imagine a large company daring to, or even needing to.

My inclination, merely as an interested glasses wearer would be to make sure You always read in good light and to correct with positive lenses/magnification for the close work you struggle with. But just that in terms of magnification. I would balance this with not reading for too long and spending a good amount of leisure time outdoors in daylight.

Regarding glare and issues night driving I would badger your optometrist for glasses which give the best visual acuity possible, mention night driving or any issue you have.

I found this helpful and informative regarding my own subjective refraction eyetests.

"An optimal correction was considered when the subjects didn’t appreciate any difference between the visibility and prominence of the letters on the red and green backgrounds. An under corrected eye which is residually myopic by 0.50D, appreciates the letter on a red background clearer and darker than letters on green background. Letters on the green background appear slightly fuzzy and less dark, with less defined borders. On the other hand an eye which is overcorrected by 0.50DS appreciates the letters on the green background to be clearer, darker and more defined in compare to the red background."

(bepls.com/june2015bepls/24f.pdf)

I realised after reading this I didn't necessarily associate bolder looking type with being clearer and would often say a bold appearing figure was as clear as as a less bold appearing one. Thus the optometrist had to make their own decision regarding which direction the lens prescription should go based on less information.

I found it concerning too, it made me wary of going to independents who might pull that kind of stunt.

I think the biases can be more subconscious than an actual overt aim to prescribe regardless of necessity. If an optometrist is wary of under prescribing for the reasons of the way some (inconclusive) research is reported and wants to achieve the greatest visual acuity possible it will result in no actual undercorrection for distance even if it might protect against the progression of myopia (as suggested by other research, some of which I have linked to). Added to this I agree with having a pair of glasses which enable a person to achieve the greatest visual acuity possible for distance but only to wear them in situations where this is needed.

"TapasForTwo

I would love to hear an optician's opinion rather than anecdotal data."
Yes, exactly.

@calpop
Predictably my answer is to go and have a sight test and take your optometrists advice 🤣🤣
There is no longterm effect to you wearing/not wearing reading glasses in terms of progression, the change you are experiencing is most likely a normal age related change which will continue whether you wear the glasses or not (sorry!) The fact that you are having to enlarge print shows your eyes are struggling and wearing reading glasses would make reading etc more comfortable and enjoyable for you 🤓

I would love to hear an optician's opinion rather than anecdotal data."

I think having both is informative and meaningful. Anecdotal data does inform in the context of certain pieces of research being apparently ignored and other pieces of research being leaped upon (without evaluating environmental factors which effected the studies in question) by the industry.

In my teens I needed glasses for distance vision, being vain I hardly wore them and glasses were not trendy in the 80's, could get by without them.
Started driving in early twenties so had to wear specs, eyesight has got progressively worse. I'm the only one in my family that wears glasses for distance and I absolutely cannot manage without them now. So maybe wearing them does make your eyes worse.
I believe that distance vision starts to level out, or improve in 40's and short vision (reading) declines. According to my optician.

No, he actively wanted people to come in with very minor eye sight issues and to sell them expensive designer glasses with all the add on’s, even if they barely needed them. He would press upon people the need to wear them even if the optom had said it was very minimal or to come back in 6 months. He was not an optometrist, he was a sales man optician.

It wasn’t subconscious, it was, we need to sell glasses this month so let’s do a free eye test promotion.

In your 40s you start to get more long sighted so short sight can improve

Wind, that is indeed shocking and worrying. I do tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. The only protection against optometrists like him is becoming informed yourself. And taking your prescriptions elsewhere after a free eye test! Although less comeback with that if you find the prescription does not suit.

Sorry I should have said optician not optometrist there!

Thanks all for the advice, will book an eye test! Do you have to pay for them? Where is recommended?

Some opticians will have offers on. Sometimes for free eye tests. Which magazine compares opticians. I think the last time I read most high street optician were rated as highly as some of the independents.

I'm in Scotland so our eye tests are free. I go to an independent optician as do my 2 kids (1 is long sighted, other has normal sight)

Your sight can't be that bad if you are able to consider not wearing glasses when u need them.
If you need them, it's like a disability and you cannot function without them.

I go to a small opticians practice and they are excellent. If I don't need new glasses she says so. I buy new ones anyway because I want to. At a different opticians years ago my eyes had improved. I was surprised and he said it's because you need glasses and you are wearing them. I had good eyesight until my early 40's when I became long sighted. Both of my parents wore glasses, DM needed them from young but wouldn't wear them until she was about 40 due to vanity!

@calpop
I'd just ask local friends/family where they go and if they are happy and would recommend.
In England you can get an NHS funded test if you are over 60, diabetic, have a close family member with glaucoma and are over 40 yourself, on certain benefits...other criteria as well. If you don't qualify they are about £20-£25 usually but some of the larger companies will have free vouchers on their websites

Your sight can't be that bad if you are able to consider not wearing glasses when u need them.
If you need them, it's like a disability and you cannot function without them.

At the worst I was -7.25 more recently I was measured at -5.75. The majority of the time I just wear a lower prescription. Obviously for driving I would wear full correction. I can comfortably read a book without my glasses. I can also walk round the house without glasses, have a bath, get dressed etc. I think this is a good thing. It did take practice to adjust. However I think it is useful. If I broke my glasses whilst out I could cope.

Highhighmountain, not sure if any of this has been said as I haven't yet read the whole thread but I am an optometrist.Every conference I've been to in the past few years and perhaps longer has discussed myopia control,because myopia is an increasing problem worldwide.
The one thing every expert seems agreed on is that under correction does not slow down the progression of short sight,in fact evidence shows that myopic kids should be fully corrected.Thats not what we thought when I started work,and it's not a big effect.Its a bit harder for an Optom too - more discussion,more hassle.
There are other more effective measures and more on the way,though you can't predict what will happen to any individual as there is so much individual variation.
Posting and running here as I'm in holiday!

infinite what is your opinion on the research I posted upthread?

Your sight can't be that bad if you are able to consider not wearing glasses when u need them.
If you need them, it's like a disability and you cannot function without them

Rubbish. I wear glasses for reading as I am now slightly long sighted so I find it harder to read smaller print. I don't need them for anything else

t under correction does not slow down the progression of short sight,in fact evidence shows that myopic kids should be fully corrected

Yes, I have read the studies (Chung and Adler IIRC) that claimed this. They were flawed in that there was no attempts at adjustment made / accounting for environmental factors effecting results. Added to this the results were only just 'statistically relevant'. They did not find huge difference. IMO the industry is giving these particular studies too much weight,

I linked to a more recent study which does make reference to and adjust for environmental factors and also suggests the opposite.

yeah, thats the thing, the only time I ever feel like I need them is when reading small print close up. I was just wondering if there was a benefit, based on this thread, of trying to hold off as long as possible. Seems the upshot is that it probably makes no difference so I guess it comes down to comfort levels. I think ill have a test and then see what they say then.