What is the deal with this “See Clearly Method”. They make all sorts of incredible (and suspicious) claims, yet they are able to advertise on TV, radio, and the Internet without regulatory authorities coming down on them. Does this method of improving your eyesight with “new powerful eye exercises” really do anything?
I haven’t seen the ads, but No, exercise will not improve your vision. I’ve heard that claim for years. Your vision is determined by the shape of your cornea and the depth of your eye. If, due to the shape of your cornea, the lens refracts the light so that it meets precisely on the retina, you will have 20/20 vision. If it meets short of the retina, you will be near-sighted, and beyond, far-sighted.
I don’t know why the appropriate govenmental agency has not anything about those ads/commercials. I haven’t seen them and I don’t know what they say. There may be some hedge factor in them.
Incidentally, not to pirate your thread, but I’ve always had a problem with people who see better than 20/20, like 20/10. If the light is precisely focused on the retina, the vision is 20/20. How can it be better? Some one once told me because of the rods/cones. People with better than 20/20 have more of them. Can anyone comment on that?
I think 20/20 is not perfect vision. It means something to the effect that a person can see at 20 feet/yards/meters what a “normal” person can see at 20 units of distance. For example, with my eyeglasses, I see 20/15, i.e., I can clearly focus on something at 20 feet that “normal” people can clearly focus at 15 feet.
I think there’s no such thing as “perfect” vision, and the “normal people” is completely arbitrary.
20/20 isn’t perfect vision, it’s normal vision. If you graphed everyone’s 20/xx measurement, you’d get a bell curve, centered around 20/20, so it’s not completely arbitrary. Presumably someone with 20/20 vision doesn’t have the image precisely focused on the retina, just focused as well as the average person.
BTW, I’ve got 20/10 vision with my new glasses 
Arjuna34
yes, and I believe that would mean that a person with 20/10 vision would see things at 20 (feet) at the same level of accuity, or clearness that a “normal” person would see at 10. This COULD have to do with the density of rods and cones. It would mean that if you had more rods and cones, more of them would be activated when looking at something at 20 (feet) from you, than would be activated for the average person. That average person would need to be closer, to have as many rods and cones activated, and therefore, you get as much information at 20 feet that he does at 10. Man, I love this guess. It seems so solid. What do you say?
Don’t know if this response is too late, but I’m not sure the suggestion that 20/20 represents the median human visual acuity is correct.
If so, then for all the folks with 20/200, 20/300, 20/400 vision–and lots of people fall in this range–there must be lots of people with 20/3, 20/2, 20/1 vision, maybe better. Isn’t this theoretically impossible?
What I was thinking (but didn’t mention) is that the distribution of eyesight isn’t a standard bell-shaped curve (i.e. isn’t Gaussian).
A large number of people with vision significantly greater than 20/20 doesn’t necessarily imply a large number significantly below 20/20, even if the median is 20/20.
Arjuna34
My ski buddy who’s also my eye doctor says that 20/20 is what “we” have defined as normal, explaining that it was more or less arbitrarily chosen.
And I gather also that 20/20 vision is not something that they will try to correct. So when he had Laser surgery done on his eyes last year, he had them done to 20/8 or 20/10.
Go figure.
To get back to the OP, I, too, have been bothered by the ads which I have heard on radio during drive time home. I think Mariette Hartley is the spokesperson in the ad. The weasel words are, as best I can remember, something like " your money back if you don’t notice improvement in 30 days." But the implication is that you can get rid of your glasses without laser surgery.
Yeah, those “money back” guarantees really get my goat. How many people bother and what proof do you need to document the lack of improvement?
All you guys with 20/10 vision and better than 20/20 may have it good now, but wait until you reach age 40. You’ll need reading glasses more quickly and stronger than the norm.
I don’t believe 20/20 is the median. Like it was said, all us guys who go off the chart would definitely skew it. As the doc said, it probably was arbitrarily chosen. But how much off the retina is the focus for 20/20? Could not be much. Could the focus alone possibly account for 20/8 vision? Could the rods and cones play a part? I never heard of any one with better than 20/10. Imagine if you had 20/1! You could soar with the eagles.
I think the curve for vision would meet Gould’s definition of a skewed curve. You would have a biological left wall of 20/1 vision (the best possible for a human), with a right tail extending way out to include the 20/700 types.
I don’t understand why eye exersizes CAN’T change your vision. If you read a lot or work on a computer a lot, your corneas change shape to facilitate close-up vision, and that is how many people get nearsighted. Isn’t that sort of the same as “exersizing” your eyes? Couldn’t your eyes change shape the same way for distance viewing?
I read in Discover magazine that scientists at Ohio State have invented contact lenses you wear at night that temporarily reshape your corneas so you have normal vision the next day.
I haven’t seen the adverts, but this “See Clearly Method” sounds like a descendent of the Bates ‘method’ for achieving “Better Sight Without Glasses”.
Dr. William Horatio Bates of New York was the original pioneer of the theory that you can improve your vision through eye exercises, and he published his first book on the subject in 1920. His theories caught on for a time, especially in England and Germany, but nowadays very few eye doctors, if any, place much faith in his methods.
For more information, you can go to
http://www.skepticplanet.com/
and search on Dr. Bates. You will find plenty of discussions as to why his methods are considered flawed.
There is also an excellent chapter on the subject in Martin Gardner’s ‘Fads & Fallacies’.
The cornea doesn’t change shape to accommodate close-up vision, as I previously posted. The lens does. People don’t get nearsighted by reading. They’re born that way. Why that trait has been passed on, I’ll never know, unless it’s because being a little nearsighted helps when you get older when your lens becomes too stiff.
There are contact lenses that can change the shape of the cornea. That’s another method. However, that’s a physical method. There are also contact rings that can physically change the shape of the cornea. These are not temporary but permanent changes. They work if you are only slightly nearsighted.
The SEC, the regulatory agency that oversees (note the pun) such matters, has issued guidelines for the claims and content of such Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) campaigns. Unfortunately, the Feds often have bigger fish to fry. They’ve been working with the FDA for some time now focusing (heh!) on laser eye surgery and similar treatments. Maybe they’ll envision (okay, enough’s enough) taking a look (one for the road) at these similar treatment regimens and scams. For more information, check out the consumer protection page at the SEC website: http://www.sec.gov
-2p
I meant to say FTC, as in Federal trade commission. Here’s the url: http://www.ftc.gov
People are rarely born nearsighted, but they might be born with the tendency to become nearsighted. You’re right that it’s caused by the eyeball becoming too long. Very nearsighted people usually have “floaters”, which are spots in front of their eyes that appear when they move their heads suddenly, especially from being upside down or lying down. These are caused by pieces of the inner eyeball that have broken off as it stretched out during growing. At least two different optometrists have told me that the current theory for nearsightedness is a combination of genetic factors and too much close focusing. That is, people can go nearsighted by reading, especially while they are still growing, but not all people will.
All the surgical corrections for nearsightedness deal with reshaping the cornea. It seems to me that eye exercises could be effective, because the lens can change where light is focused. However, I’ve asked optometrists about it, and they mostly say exercise doesn’t help.
Great!! God mixed up your lens and your thingy. He forgot which one should be soft and which one stiff as you get old. 
Thanks for all the feedback.
This “See Clearly Method” has been advertising on the AM stations for more than a month, and they also seem to have some TV infomercials making the rounds. It all sounds too strange to be true, so I checked out their web site at:
http://www.seeclearlysolutions.com/
Here is some of what they say:
"Finally, there is a safe, healthy alternative to glasses, contacts and even laser surgery available to us all.
"Developed from 50 years of research and clinical experience, and supported by a growing referral network of optometrists nationwide, the See Clearly Method is a breakthrough program designed by a team of award-winning eye doctors and scientists to help you, in just minutes a day, at home or on the go…
"See more clearly
"Eliminate or reduce nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, presbyopia, and eyestrain
"Prevent further deterioration of your vision
"Eliminate or reduce your need for glasses and contacts
"It’s quite simple, really. If you don’t exercise your body, your muscles get weaker, right? Well, there are muscles inside and outside your eyes as well. When they become weaker - from the crutch of glasses or contacts, close work like reading and using computers, or just the aging process itself - your vision gets worse. By strengthening your eye muscles, the See Clearly Method techniques help you improve your vision.
"Disclaimer
"The content provided by the American Vision Institute in the See Clearly Method and on this web site is for information purposes only and is in no way intended to be a substitute for medical examination. If you are unsure about your vision condition, consult a licensed eye doctor.
“The See Clearly Method ™ is an educational tool that teaches the user how to see more clearly, comfortably, and efficiently. It is not a medical or assistive device, nor is it a substitute for diagnosis or treatment by an optometrist or ophthalmologist.”
Check out in The Straight Dope archive, “Can sitting too close to the TV ruin your eyes?”
I can tell a big difference in my distance vision after a whole day of reading or sewing. Sometimes I can hardly see what’s on the T.V. from across the room. But then if I spend some time outside and consciously try to look into the distance my eyesight gradually improves. And I wasn’t “born nearsighted”. I was never nearsighted until I became a bookworm.