Some of you who read this forum obsessively know that I have complained about near-sightedness. This has meant that I never see the electronic times at the finish of a race. It also means that I can not get people to swim in my lane when I am leading. I can't see the clock and need to ask for starts. This is what happens on short interval swims -- "gasp! gasp! go! Phil! gasp! gasp!"
The obvious solution is to get prescription goggles. Unfortunately, my nose is such that I can not find prescription goggles that don't dig a trench between my eyes.
So my choice was to either get my nose fixed, or my eyes. Tall Paul and Breastroker encouraged me to do the latter. My wife and daughter pushed for the former. I decided to get my eyes fixed -- the recovery time is shorter.
So I am now 12 days after the LASIK operation. It was unpleasant (my requests for valium went unheeded) but not unreasonably so. I was driving (against doctor's advice) 6 hours after the operation. The worst part was that I could not swim for 10 days - I have been to two workouts since. Two days after the operation I went to the teams summer picnic. "Look at my new eyes!" I said to everyone that would listen (or wouldn't listen.)
My correction before the operation was about -6.5 diopters with about 1.0 diopter astygmatism. So yesterday my vision tests to 20-15 in both eyes. I don't think I have ever seen so well in my life, at least in daylight. Night vision is not so good, but it should get better, and I have no problem driving.
Here are some thoughts about being glassless:
- I can see the clock now. I should get better goggles, and I notice when they get fogged.
- shaving is much easier without fog-control of my glasses.
- I have not noticed any increase in flirting from the women. Maybe it has something to do with my nose. . . .
- people do say "I didn't know you had blue eyes!" which is kind of cool.
- It is a lot easier to run or ride my bike without my glasses sliding down my nose.
- I have wrinkles!
- My sight may be better, but not my insight. I still don't know who guppigirl is.
- I wave my hand in the air, confusing everyone, trying to take my glasses off.
So would I recommend it? You bet! Be sure you get a good doctor that will test you thoroughly and let you honestly know if you are a good candidate. I will provide more technical details to anyone who asks it. Just contact me by email.
Phil
P.S. Many thanks to Paul and Breastroker!
Parents
Former Member
Matt,
I would never read without my glasses, as it would have required that the book be about 1 inch from my nose. I could see well enough at that distance, however, and it was great when looking for bacteria, the micro print on the new dollar bills, or reading the fine print on legal documents (you *should* worry!)
I can no longer see so close, nor did I expect to. I can see fine about 10 inches away, however, and do not need reading glasses. I was told that as a consequence of not wearing glasses anymore, however, that I will need reading glasses about 6 mo before I would have needed bifocals.
But those reading glasses are acomin, Matt. I can hear them on the old-age express. Can you? Reading glasses are a lot cheaper than prescription bifocals, however, and was one reason I used to justify the operation.
"20-20 for close vision" is a misnomer, however, as, as I understand it, that nomenclature is only for acuity at far distances. I stand to be corrected, however.
They evidently *overcorrect* with the expectation that your eyes will relax to the correct prescription as they heal. This means that often your near vision is not so good for the first few weeks or months, like Brad's experience.
Also, you can ask to get 'monovision.' You can have one eye corrected for distance, and another corrected (say at -1.0 diopter) for reading. This is popular with people older than 45 years, apparantly, and not too hard to get used to.
Matt,
I would never read without my glasses, as it would have required that the book be about 1 inch from my nose. I could see well enough at that distance, however, and it was great when looking for bacteria, the micro print on the new dollar bills, or reading the fine print on legal documents (you *should* worry!)
I can no longer see so close, nor did I expect to. I can see fine about 10 inches away, however, and do not need reading glasses. I was told that as a consequence of not wearing glasses anymore, however, that I will need reading glasses about 6 mo before I would have needed bifocals.
But those reading glasses are acomin, Matt. I can hear them on the old-age express. Can you? Reading glasses are a lot cheaper than prescription bifocals, however, and was one reason I used to justify the operation.
"20-20 for close vision" is a misnomer, however, as, as I understand it, that nomenclature is only for acuity at far distances. I stand to be corrected, however.
They evidently *overcorrect* with the expectation that your eyes will relax to the correct prescription as they heal. This means that often your near vision is not so good for the first few weeks or months, like Brad's experience.
Also, you can ask to get 'monovision.' You can have one eye corrected for distance, and another corrected (say at -1.0 diopter) for reading. This is popular with people older than 45 years, apparantly, and not too hard to get used to.
