The idea of failing eyesight is terrifying to most people. Yet this kind of deterioration is often thought of as inevitable among the elderly. Research uncovered by What Doctors Don't Tell You has uncovered several things you may not know about failing eyesight - what causes it, and how to avoid it. Here are 13 of our most significant findings.
1. Eating more fish can combat failing eyesight.
2. Too much processed food can cause failing eyesight.
3. Chinese takeaways are particularly damaging to your eyesight.
4. Lutein is the best defence against failing eyesight.
5. Reducing your fat intake can reduce the risk of deteriorating eyesight.
6. IBS drug Spasmonal can affect your eyesight.
7. Regular vitamin E intake improves your eyesight in old age.
8. Breastfeeding may help your child's eyesight.
9. Vigabatrin, the epilepsy drug, can cause serious vision problems.
10. Bilberries and ginkgo biloba can improve vision.
11. There are links between accumulated lead exposure and eyesight failure.
12. Finally, here are six more important facts about preventing eye problems.
If you have any other tips to share, or have had significant experiences of your own, please post them below.
If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here
Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS
Eye exercises to restore the shape of the eyeball is a valid concept and would expand the holistic approach. There are educators and researchers who have carried on the Bates Method. This information gives readers an important option to complement the valuable information in this article.
eye exercises also help
Protecting the eyes from sunlight is also very important. Sunlight is very damaging to the retina.
As a Bates Natural Vision Teacher one of the most fundamental problems with poor eyesight is a lack of movement. Diet is essential but if the eyes have lost their natural vibration then circulation and oxygen will be lacking. Dr Bates recognised that we see more with the mind and therefore emotions play a vital role in our every day 'seeing', normal eyesight being variable.
Sunlight can be damaging to the retina if not regulated sufficiently. However, as
Dr Bates research discovered, too much darkness can also be damaging. We need the Vitamin D which we are able to store and utilise over the winter months. Balance between light and dark is therefore essential and is taught in the Bates Natural Vision Lesson. Information at www.seeing.org and
www.Central-Fixation.com
Also EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) is a technique which is a simple and valuable tool for anyone wanting to improve their eyesight. Information can be found at www.carollook.com/eyebook
Unless one spends ones time with eyes fixed on a point (which is difficult to do), then they eyes will be constantly moving. So that makes little sense in reality.
Dr Bates says we see more with emotion? More than what? When crossing the road? When playing darts? When asked to discern between red and green? Emotion does this better that eyes wide open? Or is this just fanciful? Comforting ideas, but fanciful allthe same?
Too much dark is bad for eyesight? Only in the sense that when its dark we can't see. Unless, there is any evidence to the contrary? Oh, go on humour me (no pun indended). Lets SEE this evidence.
Apolgies if this sounds skeptical, but emotional freedom technique needs a lot of explaining (i.e. it needs to be explained completely to everyone who asks how things work, as opposed to just, well knows they it works...)
It seems to me that you are the only one around here who insists on knowing how things work instead of going out there and trying them for yourself. Have you tried EFT?
Asking for explanations all the time and evidence just shows me that you are not capable of doing your own research and making up your own mind. Or are you just trying to make fools out of everybody on here........
Sorry Harradine, I was up really late last night reading a lot of your arguments and I feel that you are completely out of order trying to belittle others beliefs and opinions. I think I will be ignoring your posts from now on as I find them destructive not constructive.
I agree with Shirlee -- eye exercises are an extremely important part of a holistic solution.
I have personal experience using the Rebuild Your Vision Program http://www.reviewdoctor.net/VisionMiracle.html
I'm sorry, Lesley. I don't wish to be disruptive. I think in this day and age when the public are being bombarded with health advice from so many quarters, homeopaths, pharmaceutical giants, nutritionists, etc, I feel it is important for anyone making health claims to provide evidence for them. And good evidence to boot.
Some people make health claims without any evidence, just opinion. Others base it on personal testimony. Others perform sham clinical trials that often amount to little more than marketing excercises. There's a lot of bad evidence around, lots of misleading nonsense.
I'm not trying to make a fool out of anyone. But if people read this website and read that A or B treats X or Y, I think its only fair that at least one voice has actually asked the person making the claim to explain what evidence they base this on. That way people can chose their treatments based on a more informed view.
How can that be disruptive to any treatment that works? Although I grant you, it would mean that any claim with no evidence might look a little weak. But isn't that a good thing? Isn't that exactly what should be happening when advising people on their health?
Harradine,
I admire your "show me the money" approach,it reminds me of myself about 4 years ago before I realised that not everything that works can be explained, but if you were to apply the same criteria to drugs you would find that probably 15% have actually been scientifically proven to be effective.
I recently tried E F T and it works (for some things at least).There were two things in my life that caused me sadness and I couldn't talk about them with out crying. I went for E F T and now can talk about them without distress.My son had food intolerance tests done to see if there was a food link to his psoriasis. Gluten came back as being a real problem and conventional tests confirmed his coeliac status(and explained the symptoms that he'd had for the previous 12 years since being a baby).My other son has mild autism(medically diagnosed) and had-aged about 11-panic attacks,phobias and obsessive compulsive behaviour. He was greatly helped by cranial osteopathy.All three of these"alternatives" worked. I couldn't hope to explain how ,but I know they did.I have also tried acupuncture and homeopathy for myself and my sons and recieved no benefit so ,in our case, the placebo effect is not an issue otherwise it would have come into play for these two alternatives also.I was so desperate for help for my Aspergers son (and for the rest of the family who were suffering because of his problems) that I nearly went the pharmaceutical route.Some drugs were potentially addictive and some would cause nausea-fear of vomiting was one of his phobias-and other side effects.So, we tried cranial osteopathy(how weird does that look,it seems as if nothing is happening)and even after the very first treatment my husband, daughter and myself all noticed some lessening of his tension and he continued to benefit.with further treatments.Harradine has every right to question what he,as a scientist,sees as unproven but so many people seem to be benefiting from these treatments and supplements .Alternative medicine has been saying for many,many years that antibiotics should be used with much more caution and it took conventional medicine a long time to catch up with that. I believe that the same will apply to other things that are not recognised by mainstream at the moment Surely science is based on current knowledge and new discoveries continue to be made.It might not be possible to explain something now but 10 years down the line!!!
Blobby,
I think some degree of evidence is required before one can advise anyone else. with respect to personal choice of medical treatment, it really doesn't matter. if someone wants to try a therapy and really doesn't care about evidence, then that's their decision. Its people who advise others that I think need to have evidence behind them. I think that's only right.
If only 15% of conventional drugs have sound evidence to support the, then I would say that doctors should only advise the use of that 15%. But I question that statistic.
In conventional medicine, there are many treatment which have been demonstrated to be effective beyond placebo effects yet no one understand the mechanism. This is very common. Often one will hear an alternative health proponent say "just because scientists can't understand how it works doesn't mean that it doesn't". Well, this is true for conventional medicines also. Its not the fact that no one can explain the mechanism, its the fact that when tested in blind experiments, the treatments don't work.
Then people say "oh, we don't have the money to test our therapies, only drug companies can do that". Nonsense. Companies like Weleda that make vast revenues from selling such treatments could easily afford to conduct conclusinve trials. They don't tough. They know in their heart of hearts that the evidence would be negative, so they don't. Instead they rely on people who really beleive the treatments work, and will pay good money for them.
Don't get me wrong, drug companies are up to no good too. They will try to pass of drugs for illnesses that don't even exist! But it is a completely false logic to conclude from this that alternative medicine works. One does not eqaute to the other.
I say again, people should use whatever works for them. Why sla a golden goose? But no one should consdier themsevles to be in a position of advising others unless you have more evidence than "well, it worked for me". We are all very different so that type of thing is no sensible advice at all. That's why blind trials are important. And they have to be done fairly and corectly otherwise they are no good at all and end up being used as marketing tools.