I spent 90% of my early childhood outdoors. Didn't work.
You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
but my electronic image generator makes bam bam noise, must spend more money for more RAM

My eyes have been terrible since 1st grade. My prescription got as high as 9s.
Then I got cataract surgery on one eye, and I can see nearly perfectly without glasses for the first time in my life. This summer, I'm getting the other one done, and I won't have to wear glasses anymore, for the first time in my life.
Anyway, the point is: As I was talking to the eye surgeon, and mentioned my bad eyesight, he told me why: I have the eyeballs of a man who is 7'2" tall, jammed into my 5'11" skull. Apparently, I have enormous eyes, which nobody has ever mentioned to me, other than one brief girlfriend who used to comment on my gigantic green eyes.
If I had to get something big from a 7'2" inch man, why did it have to be eyeballs?
You were made for anime, not office work
If we take your eyeballs and take my teeth ("You have the roots of a 6'5" man" inside my 5'4" female body) we have the start of a good build!
Which of us is Doctor Frankenstein though?
Wow I didn't realize that cataract surgery can improve your vision that dramatically. I thought cataracts surgery was something typically reserved for seniors to prevent foggy vision
They fully replace the eyes' lenses, so they can give you lenses that correct your vision. It's just not a great idea to do surgery for something that can still be corrected with glasses.
It’s just not a great idea to do surgery for something that can still be corrected with glasses.
Well I generally agree, there are people who elect to get laser eye surgery. Is this procedure generally considered more risky than laser eye surgery?
Well, yeah, I'm old, and there were cataracts in both eyes, but one went bad real fast, over the course of a few months. The doc told me that it's kinda rare, but it happens. What was weird is that it only happened in one eye, so at least I could see with my one good eye, but if it happened to that eye too, before I could get the surgery, I'd be screwed. I literally wouldn't be able to see well enough to drive, read, anything.
So the new lens corrected for any bad eyesight, more or less. I haven't had it tested now that it's fully healed, but it probably isn't perfect 20/20, but it's close. I have a contact in my other eye, which is still at a 9, so very bad. It also has a light cataract.
Now I can see the difference between the two eyes. In my new eye, colors are brighter and sharper. In my other, cataract eye, colors are slightly, but noticeably muted. I probably wouldn't even have noticed it, if I didn't have the new eye for comparison.
I've also noticed that late at night, when I'm tired but still watching TV, I get double vision. I have to consciously focus. The doc warned me that having a good eye, and a contact lens eye would mess with my vision, and I think this is what he was talking about.
The doc said that now that I've had one done, the insurance will probably spring for the second one, even if it isn't necessary yet. That means I'll have nearly perfect vision, and maybe need reading glasses. I use reading glasses with my new eye, but if I don't have them, it isn't a big deal, I see well enough for most stuff.
Sorry to yak so much about it, but It's kind of exciting, being able to see so well for the first time, as an old person, and I don't really have anyone else to tell it to that would care.
That’s fascinating. Is it typical for cataract surgery to cause near 20-20 vision or is this something that just happened to you because you have a unique eye shape?
No, the doc said this would get pretty close. I don't think they can ever predict exactly where your vision is going to land, but he knew it would be close enough for reading glasses, which I never go anywhere without anyway, even with contacts. They are replacing your lens, so why replace with just a clear lens that is the same as your poor vision, that has to be corrected with supplemental lenses, when you can just replace the lens with a correct one, and fix the entire problem at once.
Of course, an immoral eye doctor might want to fix the blurry cataract, but keep your eyesight poor so they can continue to sell you glasses and contacts.
So I was expecting an improvement, and it certainly got darn close. Closer than I've experienced for most of my life.
BTW, it also wasn't really painful at all. It was uncomfortable the first day, but not itchy or painful, much less so the next day, and was pretty normal in 48 hours. I took a Tylenol/Advil combo, and drops they gave me.
They can't predict with 100% accuracy, because vision isn't a completely objective matter as it also takes into account your brain's interpretation of the image, but they can get pretty close. The exams you took probably measured your eye's axial length, your cornea's keratometry, diameter and other measurements.
Your ophthalmologist then selects the formula that best suits your eye (there's different mathematical models for different cases of myopia, hypermetropia and how extreme they are) and then the lens' power is calculated according to the measurements that were taken. Usually the device that takes your exam already does like 80% of the job (in the mathematical side of things), but your doctor uses their criteria to define the final IOL and from where it'll be inserted during surgery*.
It's pretty cool to take that exam. In my country I used to take it for patients that were going into eye surgery.
* It usually means a little bit more math
Is this procedure ever performed on someone with healthy cataracts to improve their eyesight?
I'm not sure if there's something as healthy cataracts. Every case of cataracts has to be eventually treated by removal of your eye's lens and then replace it with an intraocular lens (IOL).
If you meant if its ever done on a healthy lens, I'm not really sure. There's a technique for installing an IOL on top of a previously installed IOL that's called piggyback IOL, but on a healthy lens without cataracts seems uncommon.
Lensectomy and IOL placement can occur when the patient has a healthy lens in some cases though. When they're going through other issues such as proliferative diabetic retinopathy, fibrovascular proliferation can occur in the vitreous humor, which would require removing it (the procedure is called vitrectomy). In some of those cases, the replacement of the vitreous humor accelerates cataracts development, which means that the lens will have to be replaced with an IOL.
That's what comes to mind from my experience doing those exams many years ago, I could be wrong.
That makes sense. I can see the hesitation about replacing the lenses of an otherwise healthy eye
Sometimes I wonder if people see numbers like 45% and think "OMG, 45% chance!" instead of "small number * 1.45 = another small number."
Considering that a fairly large percentage of children develop myopia (as high as 80-90% in some countries) a 45% reduction would be fairly significant, no? Or am I missing something
where are you getting these numbers.. from what I can see, the global average was 23% in 2000 and 34% today.
The 80-90% claim seems to be repeated in various areas on the internet, including by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, which I assume to be reputable:
Over recent decades, the prevalence of myopia has skyrocketed, particularly in Asia. In countries like China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, up to 80-90% of teenagers and young adults are now myopic.
Of course these local averages are still consistent with a lower global average
Near-sightedness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myopia says that both terms exist in English? Not a native speaker; I think I have seen "nearsightedness" more often in English but my first language's term for it translates to "shortsightedness". 🤷♂️
IDK why it would say that, I'm a native speaker and the two terms have different meanings. Short-sightedness refers to not planning for long-term problems.
Edit: looking at what comes up in search, I see it showing up that way. I guess words change if we use them incorrectly for long enough. I'd be awfully confused if someone started talking about my short-sightedness as anything other than a flaw in my problem-solving abilities.
ok, "Kurzsichtigkeit" in German definitely has both meanings without this causing confusion in practice
I guess words change if we use them incorrectly for long enough.
Looking at the etymology, it appears that short sighted started as the medical term, with it's relation to foresight coming later. It's also older than nearsighted.
It may be less common in modern contexts, but it's definitely a "correct" use.
Also: all words are made up and the points don't matter.
Both terms depend on context. If you talk about someone's myopic or short sighted plan to earn money you know they're referring to a CEO.
We say short-sighted in Britain.
Does it work for adults too?
It probably helps against making it worse. My father always told about the 30-30-30 rule.
Every 30 minutes
For 30 seconds
Looking at least 30 Meters into the distance
No. Interestingly once myopia does start developing this doesn't seem to slow the progression. It seems to be good for prevention and that's it
No, it has to do with growth. An adult eye no longer grows significantly.
Good try child sports teams. I ain't touching that grass unless you make me.
I was outside a lot and still got myopia :3
Congrats on the luck
Then you were likely genetically predetermined to be at least a little myopic, but if you spent less time outside during your developmental phases you would likely be even more nearsighted than you are now.
Hold up now. I grew up in the 80s when we spent the whole day outside, and I wore thick ass lenses all through grade school.
I was outside a ton when I was younger and I still have myopia. These things happen.
If you get this type of short sight vision, you can train your eyes to get the vision back as this is caused by the eyes strength.
But if you have the type that has to do with your eye shape going outside will do nothing, and you can exercise it away
You need to read better. It says it reduces occurrence of myopia in a population not that it cures myopia when an individual gets it.
Sure if you have very mild short term myopia caused by eye straining you can get vision back by training your eye. But with kids it’s about how the eye develops when it’s still growing. When kids eyes grow too fast they grow less spherical and that is what causes myopia and that is the kind that you can never cure. Going outside means kids are getting more sunlight in their eye which will slow down the growth and thus their eyes will grow more spherical which means they don’t develop myopia. Playing outside won’t cure myopia but it will reduce the chance of developing it in children.
I'm pretty sure short-sightedness is more a result of patience and critical thinking, but outdoors might help near-sightedness.
"Also, while various theories such as increased light exposure, release of dopamine from retina, increased depth of field have been suggested to explain the protective effect of outdoor time, the mechanism remains to be elucidated"
Correlation is not causation.
well, i can concur. my eyes have trouble adjusting to looking into the distance when i have spent hours in front of the screen. they adapt after a few minutes to hours though.