Myopetric Much?

Ever had it before? Well you got it again.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Myopetric Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:21 am

This may require some serious debunking or, failing that, serious attention ...

In the early 1970s, about 25 percent of 12- to 54-year-old Americans were myopic. By the2000s, more than 41 percent had the condition, research finds. Wildsoet and her team have trouble finding non-myopic controls for their studies, and clinicians like Maria Liu, head of Berkeley's Myopia Control Clinic, see children as young as 4 with severe myopia.
http://www.wtop.com/267/3753809/Nearsig ... -worldwide

It gets crazier.
Last edited by Rob Lister on Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20212
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1238 times
Been thanked: 1014 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Anaxagoras » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:22 am

More time indoors, less time playing outside?

Could it just be that when the eyes are always focused on things that are near, especially at a young age, you develop myopia?
Playing outside, your eyes focus on things that are farther away.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:11 pm

I was skeptical.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?h ... i=scholarr

Stunning.

Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States
Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004
Susan Vitale, PhD, MHS; Robert D. Sperduto, MD; Frederick L. Ferris III, MD

Image

User avatar
ed
Posts: 31786
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby ed » Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:20 pm

Potentially stupid question but has the definition changed? If they are doing a "meta analysis" or summarizing earlier work they might well be using the definitions that the prior authors used. The correct way would be to go to the raw data if there are any doubts.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:27 pm

ed wrote:Potentially stupid question but has the definition changed? If they are doing a "meta analysis" or summarizing earlier work they might well be using the definitions that the prior authors used. The correct way would be to go to the raw data if there are any doubts.


Great question but it appears they did it correctly. In a nutshell, they used the raw data and applied the 1971-2 clinical definition rather than the 1999-2004 definition. The National Eye Institute says this about that study

In this 2009 study, NEI researchers used similar methods to identify myopia cases using data from 1999-2004. They found that the prevalence estimate was 66 percent higher than in 1971-1972. Myopia prevalence rose more than 100 percent for blacks and 30-80 percent for whites.


https://www.nei.nih.gov/news/briefs/myopia

Pretty clear this is not a case of confirmation or diagnosis bias; it is real.

Image

They do not know why.

We can speculate that it is because we never go outdoors anymore, because we look at ipads and computer screens all day, but it remains speculation at this point.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20212
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1238 times
Been thanked: 1014 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Anaxagoras » Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:54 pm

Rob Lister wrote:I was skeptical.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?h ... i=scholarr

Stunning.


Why stunning? There are other obvious changes over the same period, like the the rise in obesity and diabetes. Why not more myopia too?

What it means is that myopia is at least partially (and the data suggests largely) not genetic but due to lifestyle. Just like obesity and diabetes.

We can speculate that it is because we never go outdoors anymore, because we look at ipads and computer screens all day, but it remains speculation at this point.


Yeah, I suppose you could call it speculation, but it sounds like the most likely suspect to me. Got any other ideas that fit the data?
Things that don't get used enough, they tend to atrophy.

I would also guess that time spent reading books is just as likely to contribute to myopia as looking at a computer screen. I think it's the distance from your eyes that matters, not what you are looking at.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:08 pm

Anaxagoras wrote:
Rob Lister wrote:I was skeptical.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?h ... i=scholarr

Stunning.


Why stunning? There are other obvious changes over the same period, like the the rise in obesity and diabetes. Why not more myopia too?

What it means is that myopia is at least partially (and the data suggests largely) not genetic but due to lifestyle. Just like obesity and diabetes.

We can speculate that it is because we never go outdoors anymore, because we look at ipads and computer screens all day, but it remains speculation at this point.


Yeah, I suppose you could call it speculation, but it sounds like the most likely suspect to me. Got any other ideas that fit the data?
Things that don't get used enough, they tend to atrophy.


I'm not ruling it out. It is a correlation with a causative explanation. That causation however is far secondary to a malformed, egg-shaped eyeball; visual stress does not reshape the eyeball. The NEI says they don't know. I take that to mean that they really don't know. And it seems pretty trivial to test for that.
Last edited by Rob Lister on Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ed
Posts: 31786
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby ed » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:10 pm

Hmmm ... data is here
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes_q ... naires.htm

I am not going to reanalyze this crap but I will say that it seems that the vision questions are survey based and that they changed.

Enough to make a difference? Dunno but I'd want to torture the data a bit before I panicked.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
ed
Posts: 31786
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby ed » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:15 pm

There was no "raw data" on vision as far as I can see, it was a survey so that makes the remarks by NEI crap. Of course it was similar methodology, it was a survey.

Now, if this stuff is real then we should see a disjoint in the cohort group from the earlier studies today.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:32 pm

I'm not sure what you're saying ed. According to their Method's description, they appear to be using the actual clinical data from the examinations. Page 2 of my link. IOW, this isn't self-reporting. The data is taken from the raw measurements. Some of the methods changed but they appear to have adjust for that correctly by using only the methods common in both.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 65512
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2965 times
Been thanked: 1894 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Doctor X » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:01 pm

I just do not see it.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
ed
Posts: 31786
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby ed » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:08 pm

I read the original survey stuff employed when the data was collected. Guess it was more ornate than that.

Anyhoo, the numbers just look damn odd. When you see those kind of differences in a logitudinal study you think first of methodological flaws. Just seems odd is all.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:00 pm

ed wrote:I read the original survey stuff employed when the data was collected. Guess it was more ornate than that.

Anyhoo, the numbers just look damn odd. When you see those kind of differences in a logitudinal study you think first of methodological flaws. Just seems odd is all.


I would go so far as to say it is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The incidence has risen 60% for whites, 100% for blacks. That is quite extraordinary.

The NEI seems to be rather meh about it all, but they do.not.dispute it.

Were I a wooster, I would start making claims yesterday as to the cause. Wifi? Other EMF? Fluoride? Aspartame? Even the more likely cause regarding visual stress is worth raising conspiracy theories.

This is a fucking untapped woo goldmine.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 65512
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2965 times
Been thanked: 1894 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Doctor X » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:32 pm

Whereas Listy Your Mom™ says you just need to Image less.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby DrMatt » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:18 pm

When I was growing up there was no "myopia at 4". Unless you were completely blind, nobody tested your vision unless a teacher at school caught you squinting at the blackboard. I think the numbers are solid but the trend reflects improved detection.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:14 pm

DrMatt wrote:When I was growing up there was no "myopia at 4". Unless you were completely blind, nobody tested your vision unless a teacher at school caught you squinting at the blackboard. I think the numbers are solid but the trend reflects improved detection.


Diagnosis bias was the first thing I thought of too, but ... but ... this data was taken from the national survey and they appear to have corrected for that. It appears to be careful.

User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby DrMatt » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:31 am

Teh Interwebs! Everybody's looking at mobile devices instead of the world! Eleventy!
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19453
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Rob Lister » Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:16 am

There's an update to this. Succinctly, what Anax first proposed--too much time indoors--but for a different reason. Regardless of what they're doing inside the house--ipad, tv, porn--they're not outside where the bright light is.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-b ... eNews#/eye

Retinal dopamine is normally produced on a diurnal cycle — ramping up during the day — and it tells the eye to switch from rod-based, nighttime vision to cone-based, daytime vision. Researchers now suspect that under dim (typically indoor) lighting, the cycle is disrupted, with consequences for eye growth. “If our system does not get a strong enough diurnal rhythm, things go out of control,” says Ashby, who is now at the University of Canberra. “The system starts to get a bit noisy and noisy means that it just grows in its own irregular fashion.”



Based on epidemiological studies, Ian Morgan, a myopia researcher at the Australian National University in Canberra, estimates that children need to spend around three hours per day under light levels of at least 10,000 lux to be protected against myopia. This is about the level experienced by someone under a shady tree, wearing sunglasses, on a bright summer day. (An overcast day can provide less than 10,000 lux and a well-lit office or classroom is usually no more than 500 lux.) Three or more hours of daily outdoor time is already the norm for children in Morgan's native Australia, where only around 30% of 17-year-olds are myopic. But in many parts of the world — including the United States, Europe and East Asia — children are often outside for only one or two hours.


So what's the cure? Go out and play, every day, rain or shine. And shut the fucking door on your way out. But don't fucking ...

****SLAM****

... slam it.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20212
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1238 times
Been thanked: 1014 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Anaxagoras » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:20 am

OK, that makes sense too.

Funny, I've lately been wondering if spending too much time inside also leads to depression.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20212
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1238 times
Been thanked: 1014 times

Re: Myoptic Much?

Postby Anaxagoras » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:33 am

Study from China confirms that too much time indoors leads to myopia.

Let them play outdoors; It reduces risk of myopia


A new research done in China finds that risk of nearsightedness, or “myopia” for primary school children may be reduced by simply spending additional 45 minutes outdoors. Study authors published that almost 90 percent of high school graduates in some places of China suffer from myopia, and rates are lower in Europe and the Middle East, but going up gradually.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare


Return to “Medicine, Health, & Nutrition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests