Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Not at all. Not by a long shot. on 2/20/2004 8:24 PM, Lady of the Mote at mpr059@... wrote: > are we the only over 40 crowd here?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Why CR? >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:36:53 -0000 > >Hi : > >I was referring to loss of lens flexibility, and hence the inability >after about age 55 for the muscles attached to the lens to adjust >lens shape so as to focus light from different distances. > >Al looked for stuff that could be relevant to aging in the eyes and >came up with cataracts, another feature of eye aging, but not the one >I was referring to. (Al is an invaluable source of information on >just about any aspect of health! Thanks again, Al) > >Rodney. > So you're not referring to presbyopia? http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/presbyopia.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 In a message dated 2/21/04 3:44:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, dowlic@... writes: .. I believe there was a measure of close vision acuity in Walford's 120 year diet book. I originally read this in the 1980's and don't remember specifically, but I think it had one measure the closest distance at which one could read newsprint. This measurement was used to assess one's biological age, along with other biomarkers such as blood pressure I have to doubt this. I am 71 and myopic-----I can read the finest print without glasses (if it is close enough!) but that has nothing to do with my health and biological age! Peg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Yup. I believe there was a measure of close vision acuity in Walford's 120 year diet book. I originally read this in the 1980's and don't remember specifically, but I think it had one measure the closest distance at which one could read newsprint. This measurement was used to assess one's biological age, along with other biomarkers such as blood pressure, VO2 max, etc. >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Why CR? >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:16:42 -0000 > >Hi : > >It looks very much like presbyopia IS what I am talking about. >(Thanks for providing the correct term for it). > >My (inadequate) understanding is that starting around age 45 the lens >progressively becomes more rigid and by age 55 the shape of the lens >becomes fixed. Thereafter, the distance at which one is able to see >objects in focus depends on the DIAMETER of your eyeball. If you >have a large diameter eyeball, light from all distances may be >focussed closer to the lens than the retina (so there is no distance >for which light is focussed on the retina). If you have a small >eyeball (as I do) all light may be focussed beyond the retina, so, >again, there is no distance for which the light focusses on the >retina. > >Those who have a middle-sized eyeball will find that light from one >particular distance will be in focus (it could be far distance, or >middle distance or reading distance). But only because of their >eyeball size in relation to the focal point of their, now rigid, >lens. > >Anyway the point I am making about this with regard to CRON is that >this change in lens rigidity is age-related. It would be interesting >therefore to see whether those who have been on CRON for 25 years >starting at age 20 experience this phenomenon significantly later >than average. (Fifteen years of '~ON' appears to have made no >difference in my case). > >Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> > > >Reply- > > > > > >Subject: [ ] Re: Why CR? > > >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:36:53 -0000 > > > > > >Hi : > > > > > >I was referring to loss of lens flexibility, and hence the >inability > > >after about age 55 for the muscles attached to the lens to adjust > > >lens shape so as to focus light from different distances. > > > > > >Al looked for stuff that could be relevant to aging in the eyes and > > >came up with cataracts, another feature of eye aging, but not the >one > > >I was referring to. (Al is an invaluable source of information on > > >just about any aspect of health! Thanks again, Al) > > > > > >Rodney. > > > > > > > So you're not referring to presbyopia? > > > > http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/presbyopia.htm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Dunno what you're doubting: 1. The supportability of the test as a biomarker? 2. The supposition that it was in Walford's book? I don't know how reliable a biomarker it is, but the measurements started at 0 inches. Can you really focus on newsprint touching your cornea? >From: hsanborn2@... >Reply- > >Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Why CR? >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 16:02:03 EST > >In a message dated 2/21/04 3:44:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, >dowlic@... writes: > > > > . I believe there was a measure of close vision acuity in Walford's 120 > > year diet book. I originally read this in the 1980's and don't remember > > specifically, but I think it had one measure the closest distance at >which > > one could read newsprint. This measurement was used to assess one's > > biological age, along with other biomarkers such as blood pressure > >I have to doubt this. I am 71 and myopic-----I can read the finest print >without glasses (if it is close enough!) but that has nothing to do with my >health and biological age! Peg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2004 Report Share Posted February 21, 2004 Yeah, what I've read so far states the medical dogma is that it's a natural, inevitable, inexorable part of aging and no lifestyle changes can affect its progression..... >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Why CR? >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:44:29 -0000 > >Hi : > >Yes. I saw that suggested as a measure one could use to determine >biological age. But I do not remember seeing any material indicating >there was evidence that CRONies benefit from later onset of >presbyopia. But it is a year or more since I last read it. > >(Btw: by the 'standing on one leg with eyes shut' measure I seemed to >have a negative (sic) biological age. After about five minutes I got >bored!). > >Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> > > > > >Reply- > > > > > > > > > >Subject: [ ] Re: Why CR? > > > > >Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:36:53 -0000 > > > > > > > > > >Hi : > > > > > > > > > >I was referring to loss of lens flexibility, and hence the > > >inability > > > > >after about age 55 for the muscles attached to the lens to >adjust > > > > >lens shape so as to focus light from different distances. > > > > > > > > > >Al looked for stuff that could be relevant to aging in the >eyes and > > > > >came up with cataracts, another feature of eye aging, but not >the > > >one > > > > >I was referring to. (Al is an invaluable source of >information on > > > > >just about any aspect of health! Thanks again, Al) > > > > > > > > > >Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you're not referring to presbyopia? > > > > > > > > http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/presbyopia.htm > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.