Eyesight changed over night - distance glasses not working!?

[slope]

I've been wearing single vision glasses (+1.75/+1.5) since October last year, as driving and cycling distance sight was getting vaguely fuzzy. They've been great and much appreciated.

Until today! Drove into the village and distance was slightly out of focus. Lowered said specs down nose and looked over them to discover everything in sharper focus. Kept doing this over 7 miles. Lenses are clean. Yesterday glasses and vision were fine!

WTF?

[Mrs Pingu]

So does that mean you don't need the specs now?

[slope]

So does that mean you don't need the specs now?

Dunno - will see what occurs tomorrow! And probably contact an optician

[Kim]

Proceed directly to an optiquack, do not pass go, do not collect £200...

[hellymedic]

Get your blood sugar checked ASAP.
Refractive swings can be a feature of diabetes.
Get a sensible doctor and/or optician to assess you.

[Jaded]

What the last two posters said.

[Pedal Castro]

Get your blood sugar checked ASAP.
Refractive swings can be a feature of diabetes.
Get a sensible doctor and/or optician to assess you.

That is very interesting, any idea why? I wouldn't think blood sugar changes would affect the RI of aqueous/vitreous humor.

[Rod Marton]

Get your blood sugar checked ASAP.
Refractive swings can be a feature of diabetes.
Get a sensible doctor and/or optician to assess you.

That is very interesting, any idea why? I wouldn't think blood sugar changes would affect the RI of aqueous/vitreous humor.

Actually it does, at least in the cornea and aqueous humour. There are no blood vsesels in the cornea and lens, and the cells here have to be fed, so this is via glucose in the aqueous humour. And glucose concentration affects refractive index. There are also related effects due to swelling in the cornea if your bood glucose concentration goes very high.

Rapid changes in blood glucose concentration don't do your eyes a lot of good, and unsurprisingly diabetes is a major cause of blindness. Go and get yourself checked out ASAP.

[nobby]

"People with diabetes are twice as likely to suffer from cataracts or glaucoma than the general population"
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-complications/eye-problems.html

[nobby]

"People with diabetes are twice as likely to suffer from cataracts or glaucoma than the general population"
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-complications/eye-problems.html

A high end Opthalmist will have the facility to 3D scan your eyes (usual cost is about £25) and to photograph the back of the eye usually part of the eye test.. You don't want the like of SpecSavers.

[rogerzilla]

Most opticians are quacks.  I tried five before I got a working prescription.  They rush the job.

[Regulator]

I use the local Boots opticians and never had a problem.  They do the scans, photos etc. and have previously referred me into secondary care for review (everything was OK luckily).

[L CC]

My eyesight got significantly worse during at least 2 of my pregnancies. Presumably because of increased blood pressure/water retention/ pressure in the cornea.

Most opticians are quacks.  I tried five before I got a working prescription.  They rush the job.

I've found as my eyesight is now poor in more than one aspect I had to be really specific as to what I wanted cured before I got what I needed. Their goals do not necessarily equate to mine. I don't think that's quackery or even rushing, its not aligning outcomes.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I use the local Boots opticians and never had a problem.  They do the scans, photos etc. and have previously referred me into secondary care for review (everything was OK luckily).

Ditto, had good experiences with Boots opticians.

I have awkward face/prescription and they spent considerable time with me finding frames that would work with my prescription and face shape.

[rogerzilla]

I use the local Boots opticians and never had a problem.  They do the scans, photos etc. and have previously referred me into secondary care for review (everything was OK luckily).

Boots were the worst.  They gave me a totally unsuitable prescription* and, years later, gave SO an equally hopeless one.  I used their refund policy.

*both sph and cyl out by more than 1 dioptre, for both eyes, and a completely wrong angle for the cyl as well

[Mr Larrington]

Mine improved markedly when I stopped drinking but sadly the improvement was not permanent 

[slope]

This morning everything is back to 'normal' = glasses are again needed to provide clear distance vision!

I was feeling a bit 'weird' yesterday, in addition to the reverse eyesight thing. Hope to speak to a GP later.

[fd3]

I use the local Boots opticians and never had a problem.  They do the scans, photos etc. and have previously referred me into secondary care for review (everything was OK luckily).

I've had the same with SpecSavers.

[chrisbainbridge]

I suspect these complaints are now why so much of the examination is automated.  Given that distance vision is simply a case of taking parallel rays of light and focusing them perfectly on the retina then computerised systems can do this extremely well.  The problems come with more specific vision requirements and I was certainly aware of the difficulties with answering some of the questions and determining whether something is sharper or not so sharp.  Having had classes since the age of 8 and probably classed as an expert patient and certainly no every vision chart right down to the very smallest line off by heart.  This actually makes checking my prescription harder not easier.

[Gattopardo]

This morning everything is back to 'normal' = glasses are again needed to provide clear distance vision!

I was feeling a bit 'weird' yesterday, in addition to the reverse eyesight thing. Hope to speak to a GP later.

Find an optometrist as they are guaranteed to have the other bits and bobs to test eye pressure and other stuff.

[Rod Marton]

This morning everything is back to 'normal' = glasses are again needed to provide clear distance vision!

I was feeling a bit 'weird' yesterday, in addition to the reverse eyesight thing. Hope to speak to a GP later.

I would suspect a blood sugar issue in that case, they can be quite transient. You may be prediabetic (quite a lot of people are) and this is worth checking out. If this is the case, prediabetes doesn't mean that you will develop diabetes but rather that you have a raised probability of doing so, and there are things you can do to avoid it.

However there are other possible causes, and raised intraocular pressure is one of them. So it is worth going to an optiometrist and having your eyes tested. One word of caution with the IOP test: you should also have your corneal thickness measured as an unusually thick or thin cornea can distort the result. Not many optometrists do this yet.

[hellymedic]

Get your blood sugar checked ASAP.
Refractive swings can be a feature of diabetes.
Get a sensible doctor and/or optician to assess you.

That is very interesting, any idea why? I wouldn't think blood sugar changes would affect the RI of aqueous/vitreous humor.

Water moves with sugar. I know zilch about what moves fastest, just the 'bottom line' that swinging sugar can cause swinging refraction. For the ghoulish, I also know that the eye's vitreous humour can be sampled & analysed to assess sugar & alcohol at the time of death, as these are more stable in the eye than the blood.

You need medical attention.

Get it.

[Mrs Pingu]

Interesting. I have learned something new today.

[MikeFromLFE]

 For the ghoulish, I also know that the eye's vitreous humour can be sampled & analysed to assess sugar & alcohol at the time of death, as these are more stable in the eye than the blood.

You need medical attention.

Get it.

Back in the day we used to measure all manner of stuffs in vitreous humour depending on the fashion of the day and the whim of the forensic pathologist.
I seem to recall that electrolytes, and potassium in particular were enduring favourites. If memory serves correctly, the potassium level can give an indication of the time of death relative to sampling the fluid.
There was never much sample to work with naturally, so no scope for error (but more than we got when analysing sweat samples).

[ian]

It's a good place to find ebola too.