When do you / did you begin to lose your near vision?

Discussão40-Something Library Thingers

Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.

When do you / did you begin to lose your near vision?

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "adormecido"—a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Pode acordar o tópico publicando uma resposta.

Jan 27, 2015, 8:27am

A critical question for a book reader! How many more years (I'm 41) can I anticipate trouble-free reading before I'm at the bifocals shop? An LT friend approaching fifty mentioned his is starting to go, and it got me thinking about this.

Jan 27, 2015, 8:43am

Not many.

I'm right there now. If the light isn't great and the type is small, I need a pair of readers. Luckily, my husband is 4 years older than me and I'm inheriting the glasses that aren't powerful enough for him anymore. He's just turned 51 and I'll be 47 in June. He started wearing reading glasses and getting bifocals around 45.

Sigh. It sucks so much to have to resort to these things. My eye doctor tells me it's the muscles in the eye itself and that they lose their ability to contract for close focus. I just hope the rest of me doesn't follow suit, I want to be able to deadlift twice my body weight one of these days!

Editado: Jan 27, 2015, 9:38am

My optometrist wanted to put bifocals on me at age 40, but we compromised on a prescription where one eye dominates for close work and the other for distance.

It still works for screen work and general vision and some reading, but I've found I can take the glasses off entirely and read comfortably. At age 60 now, I can see that bifocals are in my future.

Editado: Jan 27, 2015, 9:24am

>2 Bookmarque:, maybe I should be sorting and prioritizing my TBR pile by font size .... sigh

>3 2wonderY:, glad to see there's some variance. You seem to be resting at the happy end of the scale.

Jan 27, 2015, 9:34am

At about age 40 my doctor recommended bifocals. I resisted but gave in a couple years later and got progressives. I never did really get used to them and even 20+ years later I still usually read without glasses - I've always been very near-sighted so my nose is really in the book. The correction just isn't comfortable for sustained reading.

Jan 27, 2015, 9:37am

That doesn't stop me from having nightmares about blindness and losing my teeth.

I've also had posterior vitreous detachment in each eye, thankfully not threatening the retinas, but still leaving a LOT of vitreous material floating in the eye. And my opthamologist tells me I have cataracts.

Jan 27, 2015, 9:42am

>6 2wonderY:
Oh, yes. I worry about macular degeneration and retinal detachments (more common in the near-sighted) too. I'm overdue for an exam and I won't be surprised if I have cataracts.

Jan 27, 2015, 9:56am

Fuchs Dystrophy runs in my family, unfortunately. Both my father and his sister have had corneal transplants which only last about 10 years or so before the new ones need replacing as well. It's the internal hydration mechanism that is faulty and causes the cornea to break down. Dad has also had cataract surgery and retinal re-attachment. I don't know if those last two are heritable, but I have a feeling eye surgery is in my future no matter what. Sigh. At least I won't be blind.

Jan 27, 2015, 10:00am

Oh, I forgot about the macular generation. My sister has it pretty bad, and my doctor mentioned it last visit, but I keep forgetting to pick up the vitamins. Must do that today.

Jan 27, 2015, 10:23am

>8 Bookmarque:
Blindness is so scary. I knew a family that had a history of Stargardt Disease. It's a genetic form of early macular degeneration and can result in total blindness by age 30. If a parent has it each child has a 50-50 chance of having it.

I know someone else who had a corneal transplant because of keratoconus. She seems to be doing well and so far hasn't needed a replacement.

Jan 27, 2015, 10:30am

My onset of presbyopia happened precipitously at the age of 48. Sitting down and reading a book with reading glasses is no inconvenience at all for me, and the text looks just fine. What's inconvenient is being at a store w/o my glasses and trying to read the fine print on a label, or public speaking or teaching when I want to look at my notes and at people. For now, these inconveniences are off-set by the fact that glasses make me look more dignified. ☺

Jan 27, 2015, 11:14am

My eye checkup two years ago was the first time I was told my near vision was starting to go and they prescribed me reading glasses. I don't use them yet because my eyes still naturally make the adjustment, but it's getting harder. Also, at my last checkup last summer, the contact lens prescription could no longer achieve both my being able to see clearly far away and close up, so I told them reading was more important to me and I now can't read things off in the distance anymore. I am 46.

Jan 29, 2015, 12:28am

I'm 34 and am extremely nearsighted. I wear strong glasses, but even still I usually have my face in my book quite literally (for comparison, with my glasses on I can't read street signs without squinting and with them off I can't find the street). Recently I had to check the serial number on my tablet/laptop computer which was printed microscopically on the edge of a hinge and the print was so tiny that I had to take my glasses OFF to read it. Never in my life have I ever needed to take my glasses off to see something.

I'm hoping that growing more far-sighted as I age will even out to having halfway normal vision.

Jan 29, 2015, 3:54am

>13 macsbrains: I was hoping that growing more far-sighted would work in my benefit, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have worked that way. I'm in my mid-40s and have had varifocals for the last two or three years. I still need my glasses for long distance (driving and reading the subtitles on the TV or trying to change channel, street signs etc) but while I can comfortably read without them at home, at work, when I need to swap between long sight and reading at more speed that's when I need my glasses. It takes too long to focus between the two without the glasses on. At home when the only 'long distance' thing I need to do is change channel on the TV or similar then I just give my eyes and nose a rest and leave my glasses nearby. The thing I am finding hard now is sewing. I used to do cross-stitch patterns a lot, but now find that I can't sustain that for as long because keeping the right focus is harder. I really should do more of it to try and get through more of the outstanding projects!

Jan 29, 2015, 11:24am

>13 macsbrains: I'm hoping that growing more far-sighted as I age will even out to having halfway normal vision.

I thought the same thing but it doesn't work that way. Like you I have always been extremely near-sighted (my right eye hasn't seen the big E on the chart in decades!) and found it very annoying when I could read newspaper headlines but not the article. Glasses did not change that so I stopped using them for close reading. I have excellent vision (IMO) if the object is within 6 inches, beyond that everything blurs. It does seem unfair that we don't get a year or two of having near and far vision counterbalance each other.

Editado: Jan 29, 2015, 11:45am

>14 Peace2: , >15 Taphophile13: That's disheartening. I was hoping for a little bit of a silver lining. My current sweet spot is within about 2 inches.

Jan 29, 2015, 12:01pm

Na, an optician told me (long ago and possibly on another planet) that middle-aged presbyopia would indeed give me a window of relief, so I was able to notice that it did occur. It was subtle, but real. During my late 40s, early 50s I was moving my reading material further away to find that best focus point, without a change in prescription.

My glasses Rx is something like -6 diopters. Thank goodness for high density plastics.

Editado: Nov 10, 2015, 9:22am

*snorts* A week after my 40th bday (this year), I went for my annual eye torture session exam. First words out of the tech's mouth...."now that you are 40..." First words out of the doc's mouth...."so, you are 40..."

My Rx hasn't changed in 8 yrs. FINALLY, I don't dread going to the eye doc. After nearly a lifetime of terrible eyesight that just progressively got worse, now they are telling me I will need cheaters in 2-5 yrs. In the next breath, they tell me I am a perfect candidate (ooo, you have thick corneas!) for laser correction.

Hrmmmmmmmmmm. Tempting, but I am sure I will still need cheaters. HA!

Edited for spelling. Heh.

Nov 10, 2015, 5:33am

I've been in glasses for my poor vision since I was like 10. (Just turned 41) Due to license renewal, my eye doc ran me through a few tests and he said, because of how bad my eyes already are, I could be in dual prescription glasses in a matter of a few years. That frightens me a bit since I had a grandfather that wore both contacts and glasses before he passed...

Nov 21, 2015, 11:48pm

I got mine at 45.

Mar 4, 2016, 4:08am

I started noticing changes about 2 years ago (I am 47 now). I bought a cheapie pair of glasses (+1 dpt) a few weeks ago to put over my normal (-5 dpt) glasses for reading in the evening. Other than that, and very small print on products and boxes, I am fine.
The yearly medical exam at work told me I wouldn't need workplace glasses for another year or so (computer workplace).

I am in envy of my parents. Both just over 70, they were diagnosed with cataracts and got plastic lenses implanted in their eyes a few years ago. They both have vision like eagles now! *grmbl*

Mar 4, 2016, 4:33am

I started noticing in my early to mid forties that I was adjusting things further away so I could read them. In the past year or two it's become noticeably worse, I'm finding some small print I can't read at all. I haven't succumb to glasses yet.

Mar 4, 2016, 9:59am

>21 GirlFromIpanema: I'm 62, and I just had to resort to that strategy myself. I guess it's time for bi-focals.

Jun 27, 2016, 7:38pm

42. I'd had Lasik to correct nearsightedness and had two perfect years before my reading vision began to go.

Jun 27, 2016, 8:26pm

Damn it, mortality, I'm getting this now. I have no need for bifocals, but I take my glasses off for the smallest print.