Another Reason to Take Your Kids Outside

[Tom Rankin]

An article in the June 21, 2011 "New York Times" suggests too much time spent indoors with artificial lights can lead to nearsightedness in children.

 

[DougPaul]

An interesting theory. We will see if it holds up...

One thought is that being indoors and focusing close by are probably correlated (think of your average view distances indoors and outdoors) which might make separating the two effects difficult.


I recall reading somewhere that the eyeball grows until things are in focus, but cannot shrink. This would lead to the (old) theory that too much close work can cause near-sightedness.

I'm not sure how to postulate a theory for bright light. Perhaps bright light (because it shrinks the iris and increases the depth-of-field) removes the growth stimulus. But this would motivate a combined effect of dim light and close work rather than remove close work from the causation.

Doug

 

[billski]

Kinda odd story coming from a newspaper which markets itself toward dwellers in the steel, glass and concrete canyons.

Full disclosure: I read the Times regularly but spend my free time in the mountains.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Kinda odd story coming from a newspaper which markets itself toward dwellers in the steel, glass and concrete canyons.

Full disclosure: I read the Times regularly but spend my free time in the mountains.

The Times is read all over the USA, indeed the world...

 

[Puma concolor]

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue against taking your kids outdoors ... but what a bunch of bunk! Typical example of using anecdotal evidence to support an already-established conclusion.

My severely disabled stepson spends 90-95 percent of his life indoors and his eyesight is just fine. Meanwhile, I have spent much of my life outdoors and had 20/200 eyesight before surgery. Based on my own life experience, my conclusion is that the sun has a blinding effect and leads to myopia in adulthood.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue against taking your kids outdoors ... but what a bunch of bunk! Typical example of using anecdotal evidence to support an already-established conclusion.

My severely disabled stepson spends 90-95 percent of his life indoors and his eyesight is just fine. Meanwhile, I have spent much of my life outdoors and had 20/200 eyesight before surgery. Based on my own life experience, my conclusion is that the sun has a blinding effect and leads to myopia in adulthood.

I don't think they are advocating you stare at the Sun all day!

And while I am not trying to insult you or your family, your sample set of 1 is not statistically meaningful.

 

[billski]

The Times is read all over the USA, indeed the world...

Really?

 

[Early Bird]

I will begin by admitting that I've not clicked on the link nor read the Times article, but the gist I get from reading the replies reminded me of a study I once read while trying out some experimental vision therapy in the early 90's for my near sightedness.
It was something along the lines of Eskimos having had virtually a 0% rate of myopia due to their lifestyle, spending time outdoors and hunting, an activity during which the eyes focus a distance away. A Google search would probably lead to something interesting for anyone interested in anything more than my vague remembrance.

 

[Puma concolor]

The incidence of myopia among Eskimos has apparently greatly increased as they've been assimilated into modern life. Seems school and reading and the correlated need to focus on close objects are the number one cited factor in the higher levels of near-sightedness among Eskimos.

Here is one article about the non-genetic causes of myopia that mentions the Eskimo study. I'm having a bit of a tough time accepting the artificial light theory mentioned in the Times story though. While my own family may be statistically insignificant, I can't help but find it interesting. With the exception of my 2-year-old, the only person is our household who doesn't have symptoms of myopia is my stepson, who spends virtually his entire existence indoors. Due to his disabilities, he really doesn't read much and certainly never focuses on close objects for long periods of time.

IMHO, computers and similar gadgets are probably largely to blame for the apparent worldwide statistical increase in myopia. Even folks who aren't studious or even inclined to read a book will spend huge amounts of time on-line for various reasons. But I am extremely skeptical that the artificial light from them is a contributing cause of near-sightedness ... instead, it seems more logical that the myopia simply comes from the focus on the screen, sometimes for hours on end. Just my $.02.

 

[DougPaul]

Here is one article about the non-genetic causes of myopia that mentions the Eskimo study.

If you look around that website you will see that it reads like advertising copy and they are selling a product. They also claim that their exercises can reduce all sorts of problems, including cataracts (clouding of the lens due to UV exposure or heat) and macular degeneration (a form of degeneration of part of the retina). These claims seem to me to be a bit far-fetched and/or exaggerated...

The info about the Eskimo study may be true, but I'm not willing to believe it based upon this website. They do, however, present a sizable list of references to what appear to be professional journals. I'd want to check the refs and maybe a professional before I believed the claims. (No, I don't have the time to check them out...)

Doug

EDIT: The above website claims their product is based upon the See Clearly Method. I searched on it and found:

The See Clearly Method is an eye exercise program that was marketed as an alternative to the use of glasses, contact lenses, and eye surgery to improve vision. Sales were halted by legal action in 2006. The method is not supported by basic science, and no research studies were conducted prior to marketing.[1][2][3] The program is based in part on the Bates method, an alternative therapy devised in the early 20th century which lacks clinical evidence to support the claim that it can improve eyesight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_Clearly_Method This still does not invalidate the Eskimo Study, but it gives me even less reason to believe this source.