Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Link Between Diet and Myopia?

Posted by timothy on from the girls-also-cause-myopia dept.

lxmeister writes: "This article from New Scientist suggests that the refined starches in western food such as white bread and cereals may be the cause of an increased level of short-sightedness. Myopia now affects 30 percent of people of European descent. So brown bread is better after all!"

52 comments

  1. Er, after all? by Violet+Null · · Score: 5, Informative

    Brown bread has always been known to be better for you. Even considering "enriched" white bread, and I use the term loosely, brown bread contains more nutrients and more fiber than white bread, and has a lower glycemic index to boot.

    1. Re:Er, after all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Careful though, not all brown loaves are bread.

    2. Re:Er, after all? by cavedave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The agricultural revolution took place between one hundred and one hundred and fifty thousand years ago.
      Before that humans had evolved to digest a diet of nuts,fruit,vegtables,meat and fish not cereals. I've seen evidence from average cranial capacity that humans were on average better developed (i.e had better nutrition) then.


      The health problems discussed in the article could be seen as evidence for this theory that humans had better diets before the agricultural revolution.


      Another piece of evidence for this is that Irish people suffer high incidence of ceoliac disease (Irish times Thursday about a month back). This is presumed to be because we share a genetic heritage with hunter gatherers for longer then people fron other countries where agriculture took over first. Hence haven't adapted to processed cereals. Irish people having higher rates of Myopia would be evidence for the cereal hypothesis.


      Most of us now recognise problems with uncontrolled salt and sugar intake that have occured in a huge degree since the Second World War. Could it be other health problems we suffer are due to consuming a diet we are not fully adapted to?

    3. Re:Er, after all? by spike+hay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've always eaten whole wheat. Especialy after you get used to it, you won't go back to white bread. Whole Wheat is much more flavorful, as well as more nutrious. White bread just tastes bland to me.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    4. Re:Er, after all? by 56ker · · Score: 2

      which is odd - because most people eat white bread for the "taste". Personally I prefer brown too.

      --


      Video Game cheats, hints a
  2. Brown bread probably isn't better Myopia by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the past I've checked the Glycemic Index (GI is a measure of how quickly glucose is absorbed from food as regards insulin requirements) for brown bread. Contrary to popular belief, brown bread has almost exactly the same Glycemic Index; ok, its very slightly better, say 98 compared to 100, but this is far too small to make much difference.

    Therefore brown bread would be unlikely to improve your sight.

    On the other hand brown bread is more nutritious in other regards, so it's still better for you.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  3. Interesting... by Dead+Penis+Bird · · Score: 1

    I was diagnosed with myopia years ago and have recently started Atkins which eschews white bread, flour and other refined carbohydrates. Though the article doesn't say, I wonder if the effects of myopia are reversible.

    --

    If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!

    1. Re:Interesting... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Possibly, but unlikely. The insulin presumably triggers permanent growth in the length of the eye.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:Interesting... by adminispheroid · · Score: 1
      ... recently started Atkins which eschews white bread, ...
      It's a really good idea to eschew white bread -- much healthier than swallowing it whole.
    3. Re:Interesting... by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      To dead penis bird:
      You really should get off the Atkins diet. Virtually all doctors think it is dangerous to avoid carbs altogether. Besides, you will get much more fat off of bacon. I guess the thing with your diet is you're supposed to go into some kind of digestive state where you don't absorb many calories. That has to be extremely unhealthy. Stay away from the fad diets. Just reduce your caloric intake around 500 calories a day and exercise.

      to CaveDave:
      The agricultural revolution did not take place 100 thousand years ago. More like 10,000 years ago. 100,000 years ago H. Sapiens had just evolved and we were in the early paleolithic.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    4. Re:Interesting... by dickens · · Score: 1

      The evidence is finally accumulating in favor of the low-carb approach. No links, yet, but there's a real study in progress, somewhere in Pennsylvania, I seem to remember.

      And Atkins is a cardiologist !

      You don't avoid carbs altogether, just reduce them drastically. 20 grams a day for two weeks, then 50 grams a day thereafter is reasonable.

      Reducing caloric intake just causes your body to stop using calories. Lethargy does not make for effective weight loss.

      If you can lose weight with your plan, you never had a problem to begin with.

    5. Re:Interesting... by dickens · · Score: 1

      Not a link to the studies, but some citations.

    6. Re:Interesting... by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      Dickens:

      And Atkins is a cardiologist !

      Yes. He is a cardiologist. 1 cardiologist out of tens of thousands in the U.S., most of which vehemently disagree with him.

      Reducing caloric intake just causes your body to stop using calories. Lethargy does not make for effective weight loss.

      Depends on how many calories you cut. Fasting will make you fatter in the end, because it raises your metabolism. Also, you lose a lot of muscle mass. But if you cut about 500 calories a day (not that much, really), you can lose a pound a week without lowering your metabolism. And it is perfectly healthy. And while you cut your calories by 500 each day, of course you have to exercise. In addition to burning calories, exercising raises your metabolism.

      Now if you really want to lose weight, take up backpacking. On a rigorous backpack trip in areas like the North Cascades or the Sierras, you can burn 6,000 calories a day, assuming an average of 10 miles each day on rough terrain and a 60 pound pack. On a week long trip, at least with me, you can only carry about 2,000 calories each day. Since there is about (i believe, correct me if im wrong) 3,500 calories to a pound of lard, you end up losing a little over a pound a day. In addition to that, after the backpack trip, your stomach shrinks quite a bit so you don't overeat, plus you are very fit and energetic.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  4. Gosh, maybe Grandma was right! by Snodgrass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and I quote: "The whiter the bread, the sooner you're dead"

    Doh, I say!

    1. Re:Gosh, maybe Grandma was right! by iammichael · · Score: 2, Funny
      and I quote: "The whiter the bread, the sooner you're dead"

      Doh, I say!

      Maybe that's why my mom always toasted my white bread until it turned black? Never could figure out her thing with burnt toast....

  5. Duh! by piboy314 · · Score: 1

    People have known this for years; they just haven't had the scientific evidence that backs it up. I'm glad somebody has proven it now!

  6. wheat bread still bread by coyote-san · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Get thee to a nutritionist!

    Wheat bread is still bread. Brown rice is still rice. The whole-grain products are essentially identical to the "refined" products at the macronutrient level (protein, carbs and fat), where they differ is the micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.)

    Somewhat surprisingly, the same analysis applies to frosted vs. unfrosted cereal. Unfrosted "corn flakes" have a little less sugar than "frosted flakes," but the glycemic index of corn is so high that the frosting really doesn't make much of a difference.

    When you take the time to look at what we actually eat, as opposed to what we think we're eating, it's scary.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:wheat bread still bread by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      yes, and knowing little about what the western medical opinion on nutrient absorbtion is, I'll still argue that all of those micronutrients are *VERY* *VERY* important. It's like fertilizers, they just don't properly reproduce micronutrient levels that occur naturally in healthy soil.

      From the people who brought you epidemic levels of Cancer - Western Medicine!

      -shpoffo

    2. Re:wheat bread still bread by coyote-san · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But at what cost?

      Nobody is arguing that the micronutrients aren't important, or that there's no need to go with whole-grain breads instead of the refined crap whenever possible.

      Our concern (excluding everyone who still believes in the FDA food pyramid) is that this causes people to focus on the wrong thing. They eat the whole-grain bread and think that they're doing something healthy, while in fact the main effect is still the sugar and insulin spike from consuming a large quantity of high GI food. They would be better off eliminating most of the bread and getting their micronutrients from vegetables.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    3. Re:wheat bread still bread by raduga · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From the people who brought you epidemic levels of Cancer - Western Medicine!

      I'll concede that our ignorance of nutrients and the broad web of interplay within the dynamics of our bodies is appalling but I understood the promotion of cancer to "epidemic proportions" to be more a function of our reducing infectious disease from endemic to much lower levels of threat. We're living longer; when our bodies get old, they break down and cancer is one of the major ways we break. With better nutrition (and elimination of the major sources of free radicals) we should be able to live longer and healthier for a longer time, but as things are, Western humans have better quality of life for longer periods than most historical societies have ever had. There are some communities who have managed to do better, but they tend to be very localised and at very low population densities.

      Western Medicine works pretty well from birth to circa. age 40 or so, then gradually decreases in efficiency as we age. Medicine alone is not the problem here; most of us do not take as good care of our bodies as we can, most of us do not know how, or have any macro or micro understanding of how our bodies work, beyond the Sesame Street level. There's a widespread notion (the legacy of Pasteur no doubt) that cancer is a disease with a systematic cause and a systematic cure, if we can only discover them, but it seems to me more the case that cancer is what bodies do when faced with ultimate entropy. Galen/Vesalius/Pasteur et al didn't invent cancer. What they did was to eliminate most everything else. Whether their children will find way to postpone entropy and rebuild telomeres (and prevent cell metabolism from going wacko) isn't certain, but it seems evident that they will try. Westerners have a good track record for persistence, if nothing else.

      It all might be missing the point. If quality and longevity are what we really want, lifestyle and environment changes may be more effective and more direct-

      -but as long as there ARE Westerners living in Western cities, drinking Western poisons and eating Western abominations, they will continue to try Western medicine, and have some fair success. Its a cultural thang.

      --
      First, nothing begins if not opening
    4. Re:wheat bread still bread by nucal · · Score: 1
      Galen/Vesalius/Pasteur et al didn't invent cancer.

      I thought Philip Morris and Jack Daniels invented cancer

    5. Re:wheat bread still bread by spike+hay · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the people who brought you epidemic levels of Cancer - Western Medicine!

      Western medicine is one of humanity's greatest technological triumphs. It has raised average lifespans from 45 to 80 years. (in Japan, where they are not fat, the average life expectancy is 80. I used that figure because the 78 life expectancy in the US is because we are all fat)

      And you think Western Medicine is to blame for high cancer rates? Well, in effect it is. Before the advent of antibiotics and modern surgical procedures, people usualy lived only to about 45, dying young because of infectious diseases. The reason cancer rates have gone up since the 1800's is because people never lived long enough before to get cancer. Cancer usualy doesn't kick in untill about 60 or 70. People rarely lived that long.

      Anyway, my psychic powers have told me that you are into herbal medicine and you live in either the Bay Area or Seattle. Anyway, herbal medicine is more dangerous than conventional medicine. Most people think that natural means safe. Munch on some Water Hemlock and we'll see.

      Herbal medicines were not made for our consumption. Any supposed medicinal properties that they have is just an accident of nature. Also, levels of the supposed medicinal compounds in herbal plants vary widely. Also, herbs go through no testing for their safety and effectiveness. That is dangerous. By contrast, modern medicine was actually made to better people's health. It was designed that way. It is put though rigorous safety trails.

      I will outline some harmful herbs now This is from a University of Virginia site:

      Chan Su: Topical aphrodisiac sold as "Stone," "LoveStone," "RockHard." It has caused death when swallowed.

      Chaparral tea: From leaves and twigs of the desert creosote bush, this is promoted as an antioxidant, a pain reliever, etc. It has caused liver failure requiring liver transplantation.

      Coltsfoot (for respiratory problems), comfrey (for arthritis, infections), and sassafras (a general tonic) have caused liver problems and cancer in laboratory animals.

      Jin Bu Huan: An ancient Chinese sedative and analgesic containing morphine-like substances. It causes hepatitis.

      Kombucha tea: Made from mushroom culture (used as a cure all), this has caused death from acidosis.

      Lobelia: Used for respiratory congestion, this has caused respiratory system paralysis and death.

      Ma huang or ephedra: An herbal form of the central nervous system stimulant commonly known as speed. It is sold with names like Herbal
      Ecstasy, Cloud 9, and Ultimate Xphoria. It causes heart attacks, seizures, psychotic episodes and death.

      Pennyroyal: This is a tea made from leaves that treats coughs and upset stomach. Its oil is highly toxic to the liver and interferes with blood clotting.

      Yohimbe bark: Used as aphrodisiac this raises blood pressure and is associated with psychotic episodes.

      Here are a few others:

      Kava- It's used by S. Pacific islanders as an intoxicant. Causes high blood pressure as well as skin problems.

      St. Johns Wort- Can cause exteme sensitivity to sunlight. Causes drug interactions.

      Valerian- Sleep aid. Works like a tranquilizer. Just as dangerous as Valium.

      So, as you can see, herbal drugs can cause psycotic episodes, liver failure, heart attacks, strokes, skin problems, death, etc. I'm not saying that some RX drugs don't do the same. But at least the RX drugs are more effective and they are better tested. And a knowledgable doctor prescibes them to you, which is a bonus.

      Most herbal drugs have no effect other than placebo. Just go with the vitamins. It's not worth the risk to take an innefective drug with unknown dangers.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    6. Re:wheat bread still bread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason cancer rates have gone up since the 1800's is because people never lived long enough before to get cancer.

      So how can you make such a claim? If people didn't live long enough, how do you know they would have gotten cancer back then, too?

      Herbal medicines were not made for our consumption. Any supposed medicinal properties that they have is just an accident of nature.

      Fruit and vegetables were not made for our consumption. Any supposed nutritional properties that they have is just an accident of nature. Sounds stupid, doesn'it it?

      It is put though rigorous safety trails.

      Ah, that will be why we get all those safe drugs like thalidomide, etc.

      Coltsfoot (for respiratory problems), comfrey (for arthritis, infections), and sassafras (a general tonic) have caused liver problems and cancer in laboratory animals.

      Which is obviously not at all applicable to humans until it is tested on humans.

      But at least the RX drugs are more effective and they are better tested.

      I had a friend who was put on so many different types of anti-depression medication, none of which worked, and all of which turned her into a virtual zombie. By contrast, my experience of St John's Wort and other natural remedies (from a medical herbalist, not in the pill form) works wonders.


    7. Re:wheat bread still bread by raduga · · Score: 1
      Hi Coward,

      (if I had mod points I'd give you a few)

      the reason cancer rates are up, is largely because people in Western Society are living longer, in good proportion due to the advances in treating communicable diseases; with antibiotics and sulfa drugs. One thing to consider is that the average life expectancy included people dying of childhood diseases (largely eradicated or subdued today) and recurrent epidemics. People who managed to avoid these spectres, and who had good nutrition, often lived a pretty good long life. Elite Greeks and Romans lived into their 80s and 90s, some even longer. The *average* person alive in Classical times, though, was a slave, and her/his life was crud. Few folk were lucky enough to live the longer lives- due to Western Medicine many more of us have that opportunity.

      It's hard to say how the toxin burden has shifted from the mid-late 1800s, though. The cities then had air quality in some cases much worse than ours; but they also lacked our friends dioxin and Sr90. Males (may) have smoked more heavily then than now, but females smoked more rarely. I don't have hard-and-fast figures, but I'd say that between 1902 and 2002 the toxin load hasn't changed *dramatically*. Between 1802 and present is another story.

      The major difference though, is that many more people will live long enough to get cancer, and therefore will suffer. The best Western Medicine can do today is palliative. Whether that will improve significantly I can't say, but I suspect Westerners will try their damnded to do so.

      As far as the traditional medicines you describe, its really uncharted territory. Western Medicine treads very lightly and carefully over subjects "outside" of it. It took 1500 years for Europeans to start investigating new procedures again; the field is extremely conservative, and human lives far shorter. What value there is in traditional herbal treatments and practices, I suspect will be incorporated into Western Practice, but the pace is sure to be frustrating. I recommend strongly that your friend taking St. Johns Wort stay in touch with his (Western) physicians, as they may understand better than he some aspects of the psychopharmacological process. All experts are fallable, but the more experience, the more viewpoints you can get, the better able you are to make decisions.

      Western Medicine is fallable, and that is its bitter joy. Fallable means that it can correct itself, across all our bodies over time. A medical tradition that cannot admit to its errors cannot correct them. If you're interested in a different approach from what you see in the here, I suggest reading up on modern Chinese practice; in rural China many physicians make use of both Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine in their treatments. I don't know how well it works, I cannot vouch for its effectiveness.

      It is important to remember that not all treatments work for all patients. Western Medicine is *good* for the average patient, excellent for exceptional patients and less than adequate for some other exceptional ones. I suspect this will always be the case. The exceptional will seek out other treatment, which will work for some and fail for others.

      --
      First, nothing begins if not opening
    8. Re:wheat bread still bread by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      So, did you just get your medical Ph.D? because you sound just about as ingorant as most clinical doctors I've spoken to...

      I ask you then, in all of your wisdom on the Cancer epidemic: how is it that any case of cancer can disappear and go into "permenant remission" within the space of 4-8 hours? Disappear, i.e.: no biopsy is possible because no cancerous tissue can be located in any area. You may use any reference materials you likea nd you may take as long as you feel necessary to respond.

      This sceanrio has happen many times, and you aren't going to find an answer looking through the annals of the AMA.

      Cancer is a cessation of energy flow to an area of the body, which eventually causes that area to 'die' and begin to be reclaimed by opportunistic organisms that break down decaying matter. Similar tot he concept of 'bions' but without the mysticism. If this isn't getting though I encourage anyone who's interested to email me, there are several good places to start.

      ..and unless you're a total ass (debatable), you'd know that Western Medicines are extracts derived from plants in nature. (other cultures call them "herbs" - go figure). The only thing "we" do here in the West is refine the substance down to the only compound that we think is necessary for the reaction we think we need. EVerythign is 'natural' in origin, it's just that peopel often seem to try to make thigns as unnatural as possible. Similarly, many poisons and venoms have been used to create powerful curatives - the same poisons that can kill you inmoments of reaching the bloodstream. Maybe you ought to carry a copy of the Merck index next time you pick up your prescription from your 'dealer' and find out just where your fix originated from before they slapped a (TM) on it...

      Anyway, my psychic powers have told me that you are into herbal medicine and you live in either the Bay Area or Seattle.

      and thank you for being a demographic bigot. If I was to carry that attitude myself I might assume you're a "nigger" because "you're so fucking stupid"

      wake up
      -shpoffo

    9. Re:wheat bread still bread by mosch · · Score: 2
      you're a fucking retard. It's too bad you came just shy of invoking Godwin's thread, and ending this rediculously offensive and idiotic thread.

      You show me a tumor that goes into remission in 4 to 8 hours, and I'll show you a broken MRI.

    10. Re:wheat bread still bread by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      And by attempting to cite Godwin you were perhaps attempting to wriggle out of your unfounded arguement?

      Go do through some medical journals and do a bit of actual research - there are many such cases of radical tumor remission recorded in both the U.S. and other nations. The major thing that is preventing you from learning anything here is you're being so beligerent about your ignorance.

      If you had any point you might go about citing some refence to your claims, but you didn't - you just attempt to try a bitch-slap in order to avoid an arguement that you feel you're "losing". Grow up, take some responability for the ignorance you've been promogulating and get a bit broader perspective on things.

      -shpoffo

    11. Re:wheat bread still bread by mosch · · Score: 1
      Next time you insult me (without citing any reference for your rediculous argument), you should at least pick words which exist in unabridged dictionaries. Promogulate isn't a cromulent word at all.

      As for research into cancer, I've done a lot of it, I've probably spent a solid 6 months reading medical journals while attempting to see if there was anything that the doctors hadn't considered. Not ONCE have I read of a sizeable tumor disappearing in 4 to 8 hours. A week, two weeks, sure. 4 hours? Hell no.

      You're just an idiot who read something in some new-age book and spouts it out as though you've actually done research. Go back into your hidey-hole, before you set medicine back another thousand years.

    12. Re:wheat bread still bread by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
      Cancer is a cessation of energy flow to an area of the body, which eventually causes that area to 'die' and begin to be reclaimed by opportunistic organisms that break down decaying matter. Similar tot he concept of 'bions' but without the mysticism.

      Whaddaya mean, "without the mysticism"?

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    13. Re:wheat bread still bread by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      I've set a note on this thread, when i dig up the reference to the cases that i'd come across I'll reply them here or find a way to contact you otherwise. You, unfortunately, seem unwilling or unable to look beyond your own fears. Something you are holding onto precludes you from accepting that there is indeed a possibiliy for cancer to fade within a few hours. What would it mean to you if the universe suddenly allowed for this to happen?

      So much time you've put into this - have you lost someone to a cancer and are unable to accept that they harbored the problem within themselves? You're so afraid of my premise that you have to revert to nit-picking my spelling.

      I do hope you find solace in whatever burns inside of you.

      -shpoffo

    14. Re:wheat bread still bread by mosch · · Score: 1

      I pray for your soul, that you'll someday be able to escape the grip of scientology.

  7. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems some other people have differnt idea of what might be causeing myopia.

    http://www.myopia.org/

    1. Re:Funny by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1
      Can you say "crank pushing a book?"

      This isn't to say that there aren't problems with modern eye care--those laser mills make me nervous as hell.

  8. damn by diesel_jackass · · Score: 2

    and i thought i got it from staring at the sun!

    damn cheerios!

    --
    THERE IS NO DATA. THERE IS O
  9. I've got Coke-bottle glasses by meridoc · · Score: 1

    When I was born, I was allergic to gluten (found in most grains), so I couldn't eat any cereal or breads or pasta until I was older. It was all soy-based stuff for me, along with peanut buttered-rice cakes.

    I've worn glasses since 2nd grade, and have a prescription that rivals most 40-year-olds. Genetics can't be thrown out the window just yet.

    --
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein
    1. Re:I've got Coke-bottle glasses by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      So, you were NOT eating the good good brown bread that lowers the chances of myopia? And you've been wearing glasses since 2nd grade? How unexplicable!

      Its not the white bread that has evil stuff in, its the brown bread that has good stuff. And, no, genetics can't be thrown out the window, nor does indoor living. Myopia is probably caused by a mixture of many different things.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:I've got Coke-bottle glasses by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Also, it's not necessarily cereals that would cause this effect, high glucose sources, rice or candy bars or even lack of exercise for example, probably can induce this effect.

      The other main theory is that myopia is related to close work, e.g. reading

      There's a correlation between having lights on in a bedroom and developing myopia. My take on that is it allows reading in bed, and when reading in bed, the book is held closer.

      The theory behind it is that doing lots of close work triggers growth hormones in the eye that optimise the eye for close work.

      Possibly both theories are true; or one is more important.

      And yeah, genetics definitely play a part too.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:I've got Coke-bottle glasses by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      There's a correlation between having lights on in a bedroom and developing myopia. My take on that is it allows reading in bed, and when reading in bed, the book is held closer.

      There is a theory that the genetic ancestors of myopic children might leave an artificial lamp burning at night, in order to more easily navigate a toy cluttered nursery in the dinural period.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    4. Re:I've got Coke-bottle glasses by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Oh well, that explains everything then.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  10. or.. by Cenam · · Score: 0

    ..this could be another fucked up study where ppl leave out the details, like in the us we are pretty damned lazy, including little things like looking over objects thourally, which causes the muscules in our eyes to get stronger and be able to focus easier..

    --

    The Truth: There is no string:)
  11. and genetics by adminispheroid · · Score: 1

    Interesting web page about the genetic contribution to myopia here.

  12. That's really interesting by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    I've never heard of that theory before.

    It wouldn't surprise me. My eyes were bad as a kid and when I started wearing glasses they got worse quick. Everytime I visited the eye doctor I'd need a stronger pair.

    A year and a half ago I had lasik done and I've been loving it ever since! It's not perfect, but it's sooooo much better than wearing glasses or contacts!

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:That's really interesting by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

      I tend to agree, this does seem like some crank shilling his wears. What is really funny is last time I checked pinhole glasses weren't the most legal thing. Sure they improve vision, but at the loss of field of view, since they basically do the same thing as squinting and we smarties on Slashdot all know how refraction effects light. Oh well hopefully the FDA will catch up with this site.

  13. Natural Eyesight Improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Some theories point to the idea that wearing eyeglasses actually contributes to myopia. It is well known that, once children are prescribed eyeglasses, they typically require a stronger and stronger prescription over time.

    In the early 1900's, an eye doctor named William H. Bates developed and attempted to promote a set of theories and techniques for natural eyesight improvement. One of the more well known people he helped was famous author Aldous Huxley, who wrote a book about his experience titled The Art of Seeing. Unfortunately, Bates' ideas are not yet generally accepted and promoted by the western medical establishment.

    www.i-see.org is a good source for information on natural eyesight improvement, and also has a good resources page. Some other useful sources are: www.seeing.org, Relearning to See, and Better Eyesight Without Glasses.

    1. Re:Natural Eyesight Improvement by sotirop · · Score: 1

      test 1 2 3

    2. Re:Natural Eyesight Improvement by jsimon12 · · Score: 2

      Did I miss something of has Slashdot become a site to start shilling bad science? Whoever posted this needs to get a clue. I doubt the medical establishment has a vested intrest in selling eyeware. Simply because there isn't a HUGE amount of money in it (we spend more on cosmetics as a race then we do on corrective lenses). But that point aside this post stinks of the owner of the site trying to sell his wares, or get a higher ranking in the search engines (which if one searchs for this myopia.org site one finds that it appeared as a domain on the scene about 9-01 or so and hence forth has posted in many a psuedo medical site to gain higher posting in google). But enough of my theories and opinions. I think the folks on Slashdot are wise enough to smell something that is more then a little off, least from where I stand.

    3. Re:Natural Eyesight Improvement by BatesMethod · · Score: 1
      The ISEE site appears to be a better source for information on natural eyesight improvement than myopia.org.

      Otherwise, OptiStock.com may be a good place to look for information about the profit potential of the vision care market.

  14. So didja hear the one about... by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 1
    ... the Cajun-Norwegian restaurant?

    They serve blackened toast. <rimshot>

    (Shamelessly stolen from Garrison Kiellor's fine joke show last weekend.)

    --
    Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
  15. I used to live on Coca-Cola by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 1
    It was all soy-based stuff for me, along with peanut buttered-rice cakes.
    I think you'll find that the rice cakes are processed to a degree very similar to white bread.

    The thing I do not see explained in the article is why the parts of the world where rice is a huge part of the diet don't have a high incidence of myopia. If the bran layer effectively neutralizes the starches, switching from wheat bread to brown rice would be simple for most people. I wonder if anyone's getting ready to do a longitudinal study?

    --
    Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
    1. Re:I used to live on Coca-Cola by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      It might be explained by exercise levels in the different countries.

      If you have a lot of exercise then the muscles burn up a lot of glucose.

      They then are a lot more sensitive to insulin, and the level of insulin won't go as high, and the eyes will be less effected.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  16. MYOPIA by StealthAXE · · Score: 1

    Myopia is near-sightedness. Short sightedness is haplessly removing nutrients from food and then having it affect your health.

  17. Glycemic index and the Zone by thrandur · · Score: 1

    In the Zone, Dr. Barry Sears talks about the negative effect of food with high glycemic index. High glycemic index elevates insulin levels and according to him causing all sorts of problems, like obesity, heart problems, high blood pressure and increased diabetes II risk.