The govt slogan is:

“Keep Myopia at Bay, Go Outdoors and Play”

Is there good scientific evidence to support the idea that outdoor play prevents myopia?

I wouldn’t have thought so, but I’m no eye professor.

Only thing I could find after an exhaustive search of a couple minutes:

Lack of outdoor play linked to short-sighted children

The time children spend outdoors could be linked to a reduced risk of being short-sighted, research suggests.

An analysis of eight previous studies by University of Cambridge researchers found that for each additional hour spent outside per week, the risk of myopia reduced by 2%.

Exposure to natural light and time spent looking at distant objects could be key factors, they said.

The studies involved more than 10,000 children and adolescents.

Researchers are presenting their findings at the American Academy of Ophthalmology annual meeting in Florida.

Dr Justin Sherwin and his research team concluded that short-sighted children spent on average 3.7 fewer hours per week outdoors than those who either had normal vision or were long-sighted.

But they said the reasons why were not yet clear.

They expected to find that children who spent more time outdoors also spent less time doing activities like reading, studying or playing computer games, but no such link was found in two of the eight studies which looked at this relationship.

However, Dr Sherwin said they would now need more precise data to try to understand which factors, such as increased use of distance vision, reduced use of near vision, natural ultraviolet light exposure or physical activity, are most important.

Full report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15427954

yes

Well there you go.

It’s pretty recent stuff and still to become lore……

I’ll see what I can find.

My eyesight is deteriorating due to being outside most of my life. I can no longer focus on things I am holding, but can clearly see things a few meters away. I guess that this is the opposite effect to what is mentioned in the OP. If only buffy were here to lead us into the light.

…oh look, there she is.

>> I can no longer focus on things I am holding,<<

reaching the mid 40’s, are we?

;)

It’s a Too Many Birthdays issue.

It’s a Too Many Birthdays issue.
—

Well no wonder some women stop having them…

Actually, time flies…..the paper is just on 12 months old:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367471/

But it is only one paper. There is a lot of ‘discussion’ around myopia in recent years. You have to be careful, because there is a myopia ‘epidemic’ in Asian countries not mirrored in Western ones. It’s all very difficult to tease out at the moment.

buffy said:

>> I can no longer focus on things I am holding,<<

reaching the mid 40’s, are we?

;)

It’s a Too Many Birthdays issue.

No. I’m still 29.

Again.

Kingy said:

No. I’m still 29.

Again.

You’re as young as Boris is old.

i’ve kept extremely well though.

keeping someone in a cell with no visual reference affects peoples eyesight

there was someone who had been banged up over here and hadn’t been able to look into the distance and it had affected his eyesight

I’m not sure if it is related, but Australian Aborigines have been recorded as having extremely good eyesight. 1.5/6 compared with 6/6 for the average European. There is some anecdotal evidence that this keen eyesight is due to environment, not breeding, as the French castaway Pelletier, who was raised in an Aboriginal tribe from the age of 14 was reported to have remarkable eyesight in his 30s.

Yes, although I don’t know where the reference is, I recall being told the best acuity measured was an outback person. But excellent eyesight into your thirties is nothing remarkable. It should be that way.

buffy said:

Yes, although I don’t know where the reference is, I recall being told the best acuity measured was an outback person. But excellent eyesight into your thirties is nothing remarkable. It should be that way.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/kelvin/files/s9.htm

Pelletier’s eyesight was recorded as not just good, but remarkable.

buffy said:

Yes, although I don’t know where the reference is, I recall being told the best acuity measured was an outback person. But excellent eyesight into your thirties is nothing remarkable. It should be that way.

I am trying to think of his name but there was a British General during the Napoleonic wars who had a shocking reputation for making bad decisions in battle. Mostly due to him not being able to see past his horses head.

>>there was someone who had been banged up over here and hadn’t been able to look into the distance and it had affected his eyesight

PeterT it was.

Ah, Hugh Taylor’s stuff. My chart has a 6/4 line and it is not unusual to find people who can read it. Not common, but not unusual. 6/5 is reasonably common, particularly for binocular vision. I have seen people post cataract surgery who can do 6/5 even though they are older and their vitreous and retina are showing signs of age as well.

I got the numbers the wrong way round :(

I hit the 6/5 line a few years ago, when I was in testing with Ryan.

I still needed glasses :)

I was going to ask what numbers, but I worked it out. I can’t locate anything about Narcisse Pelletier’s vision, but I would be surprised if it was measured the same way we do now anyway. I think he was something of a showpiece, poor man. Hence I would take with a grain of salt claims of super-vision. He would, however, have been taught to look. Hunters have to look and they have to see.

>>I still needed glasses :)<<

Yes, many people do need glasses for optimum focussing on the retina. The limiting factor for visual acuity is probably the packing of the receptors, and focussing is further messed about by inconsistencies in the vitreous, the limiting membrane of the retina, the fluid flowing around in there, the corneal clarity, and the lens clarity (which changes with age). It’s one fancy little contraption, the eye, and it is actually amazing that it works as well as it does.

:)

buffy said:

I was going to ask what numbers, but I worked it out. I can’t locate anything about Narcisse Pelletier’s vision, but I would be surprised if it was measured the same way we do now anyway. I think he was something of a showpiece, poor man. Hence I would take with a grain of salt claims of super-vision. He would, however, have been taught to look. Hunters have to look and they have to see.

I have a copy of Stephanie Anderson’s book. I will see if I can find the particular anecdote I am thinking of.

This one?

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Aboriginal+History+Volume+34,+2010/5611/review24.xhtml

I just skimmed that really quickly.

“Ottley was also struck by Pelletier’s incredibly acute eyesight. He tells how Pelletier, as they were steaming down the coast, pointed out some tiny spec on an island in the distance, well beyond the range of ‘our most powerful glasses’ and identified them as canoes of an enemy group, which he named. Only when the boat drew much closer could it be verified that the specks were indeed canoes.”

As I said, only anecdotal. I am not sure if there was more written about his eyesight by Sir John Ottley.

Hmmm…I have myopia. My experience was I spent a lot of time outside as a child and my eyesight deteriorated from the classroom situation. We had poor lighting in the classrooms and I was a very well-behaved child so teachers trusted me to sit at the back of the classroom (some may scoff at this, but it was a demonstration school for trainee teachers and the staff used innovative ideas around many issues). My mother was on a campaign to get lights in the classroom during my early years at the school. I have very clear memories of squinting to see what was written on the board.

There is supposedly a link between myopia and IQ, – this from the Wikipedia article on Myopia:

“A 2008 literature review reported studies in several nations have found a relationship between myopia and higher IQ and between myopia and school achievement. A common explanation for myopia is near-work. Regarding the relationship to IQ, several explanations have been proposed. One is that the myopic child is better adapted at reading, and reads and studies more, which increases intelligence. The reverse explanation is that the intelligent and studious child reads more, which causes myopia. Another is that myopic children have an advantage at IQ testing which is near-work because of less eye strain. Still another explanation is that pleiotropic gene(s) affect the size of both brain and eyes simultaneously. According to the two most recent studies, higher IQ may be associated with myopia in schoolchildren, independent of books read per week.”

Combining this with Buffy’s info, one might expect being outdoors to make one stupid but if the link is independent of a cause and effect relationship between close work and training of the brain, taht might invalidate the conclusion. I’ve spent too much time outdoors to be able to work it out.

buffy thinks IQ testing is a load of……….whatever you like to call it.

:)

There was a lot of faffing in the literature a few years ago when this information was published:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15008559

But more recently the figures seem to have stabilised:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150587

Those papers are about the ‘epidemic’ of myopia in the Chinese children in Hong Kong. It was something peculiar to that region, according to the research. It still hasn’t been sorted out properly.

>>Those papers are about the ‘epidemic’ of myopia

Where do the anti-vaccers stand on myopia I wonder.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Those papers are about the ‘epidemic’ of myopia

Where do the anti-vaccers stand on myopia I wonder.

Ask them, then report back.

kii said:

…I was a very well-behaved child so teachers trusted me to sit at the back of the classroom (some may scoff at this

*scoff scoff scoff *

‘Sif you were ever well-behaved!

OCDC said:

kii said:

…I was a very well-behaved child so teachers trusted me to sit at the back of the classroom (some may scoff at this

*scoff scoff scoff *

‘Sif you were ever well-behaved!

:P

buffy said:

He would, however, have been taught to look. Hunters have to look and they have to see.

This +1. I’d focus (no pun intended) on that part of the seeing function before getting all reductive over the eye structure; a brain makes everything of its input —- as long as it gets the input in the first place. I’d be very suss that the scopes used to verify Pelletier’s sighting were able to resolve as well as a healthy eye anyway.

Hello over there buffy! I read the sad news about the aye bee friggin cee’s latest Mark Scottling and came to check whether the community’s doing alright …. not even a lurker these days, but I have very fond memories of you all.
I shouldn’t have worried, ay! The other forum hosted by the techie musn’t have even been in the race, by the sounds of things here.
So I saw your nick and registered just to say thanks for your somewhat excellent and generous advice from years ago.
It’s great to see a regional professional committed to this kind of un-censored community. Carry on. See you in another 5 years!

buffy said:

buffy thinks IQ testing is a load of……….whatever you like to call it.

:)

In terms of telling you much that’s relevant to how ‘useful” a person is, I’d agree but there’s not a lot of doubt that it does measure something about a human brain taht’s reasonably consistent (and can’t be faked).