Can the heavy use of a computer be a cause of glaucoma?

Almost every eye specialist you might visit nowadays will confidently answer "of course, not!" Is it so clear? From my personal experience, I learnt that a heavy use of computer (often I spend the whole workday working on the computer) often causes me eye discomfort, pains, and headaches. Therefore, my impression always was that the conventional medicine doesn't have the full answers.

 Recently I came across this (quite old) article on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4008185.stm

 I bet many of the ophtalmologists would not have a good answer if you ask them about this article.

Does anybody have any similar experience?

 

Hi vis01,

I agree with you that eye discomfort, eye pain, and vision-related headaches indicate problems. You are wise to pay attention to these symptoms. I think any changes you can make to reduce those symptoms will be beneficial. However, I wonder whether the issue is the computer itself or the way we interact with the computer. In fact, the same eye discomfort, pain, etc. can occur when reading a book, watching TV, or doing any kind of detail work.

You and I have discussed the Bates methods for vision improvement in the past. Dr. Bates has a clear position on this issue. He says that the problem is not with the computer (or the book or the small type, etc.) - the problem is with our vision habits. My own experience seems to support Dr. Bates's position -- but the jury is still out.

However, I do know that computer use - even extended computer use - does not elevate my eye pressure. Given that elevated eye pressure is the number one risk factor for glaucoma, I pay a lot of attention to the things that elevate my eye pressure. Computer use is not one of them - at least not for me. Other people in our research project are reporting the same thing. I'd like to hear what you find out once you start monitoring your own eye pressure.

In regard to that Japenese study, it isn't the most well-designed study. I would be careful about taking its conclusions too seriously - or if you do take them seriously, be ready to back up your position with more evidence than just this Japanese study. The ophthalmologists I work with are familiar with that study and none of them hold it in high regard, not because of its conclusions, but because of its poor design. I think there was a discussion on that study here on FitEyes a while back, but I don't see a reference to it at the moment. However, I posted this comment about that study in on another website a couple months ago:

I should point out that there is a Japanese study involving myopia &
glaucoma that many people feel is flawed. I'd be cautious about making
any changes based on its conclusions.

In response to this study, Bob Stamper, a glaucoma specialist at UCSF
in San Francisco, CA, commented:
"Does someone not understand the difference between association and
causation? Could it be that more near-sighted people tend to gravitate
towards more sedentary, computer-related jobs and it is the myopia
that is the causative factor for both? I am sure there are other
explanations as well."

I'm not saying I agree with Dr. Stamper 100%. And you may be justified in saying that this isn't really a good answer. After all, Dr. Stamper isn't clarifying anything. But he is pointing out that the Japanese study wasn't very rigorous in several important ways and that leaves its conclusions without much weight.

Are you familiar with what Dr. Bates says about reading and computer work? I think you might find his recommendations to be helpful.

Dave,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts about this. I might agree that it is not the computer itself causes the problems, but probably the way we interact with the computer. Nevertheless, my impression was that extended computer use is not healthy for the eyes (when the user interacts with the computer in a wrong way?) I will be happy if more people can comment on this point.

 

I have a similar question.   I want to know if my ocular migraines are causing my glaucoma and if treating them would cure it.    Since they're mostly a nuisance I've shied away from taking medications from until now.

 Computer use can aggravate them, but the main factor seems to be my GERD medications, and if I don't take them, I quite literally don't get any sleep and cough and choke constantly.   If I take them that problem is just short of under control.  

 It's relatively easy to set your computer so that they aren't aggravating your migraines.  Make sure the flicker or refresh rate is set above 75 on a CRT and as high as it will go on an LED monitor.   CRT's are better if you have trouble with migraines or other visual issues than LED's which have a bad tendency to various sorts of irregular screen flicker, sometimes due to electronic interference.   Turn down the brightness.   And watch your lighting.   Also keep the monitor the right distance from your face.  

 

Yours,

Dora Smith

 

I left out something very important.

 

Migraines are one of the strongest risk factors for normal pressure glaucoma.  

Dora - you are not taking care of your body.You have created your gastroesophageal reflux disease, your ocular migranes and your glaucoma through your own thoughts, emotions and actions. (All illness is self-created, and since I have glaucoma I have to admit that I created my glaucoma through my own thoughts, emotions and actions.) Of course, I don't mean that you created your health problems consciously. It is almost always done in an unconscious and very subtle way.

Treating your ocular migranes will not cure your glaucoma. Purging would probably have just as much a chance of curing your glaucoma.

Actually, now that I think about it, the best advice I can offer is to purge your mind of negative thoughts and purge your heart of negative emotions. That's the advice I'm acting on at this very moment. Nothing occurs in our lives which is not first a thought. If you have watched "The Secret" recently, you know that thoughts are like magnets. Like attracts like. Thoughts draw effects to us. And sometimes the most subtle thoughts are the most powerful. Often we are not aware of those thoughts.

It can be difficult to reverse negative thoughts once they have become a lifelong habit. But it doesn't have to be difficult. Solving our health problems is as simple as solving our thinking problems and following the proper lifestyle.

In Ayurveda, this simple preventive maintenance plan is called dinacharya. Dinacharya is the Sanskrit word for daily routine. Din means day; and ‘charya’ means to follow. The daily routine consists of maintaining good hygiene, obtaining some physical exercise, eating a healthy diet, regular and proper elimination of wastes and a positive mental outlook.  And according to Ayurveda we should coordinate our schedules with nature’s cycles. The great Dr. Triguna suggests that going to bed on time is a very powerful (he actually said, The most important) health promoting activity we can do. In that respect, I'm doing a poor job right this minute because it is way past the ideal bedtime. Therefore, I think I'll end this post now.

 

villandra:

 

Migraines are one of the strongest risk factors for normal pressure glaucoma.  

I suspect that is related to perfusion issues, right? 

villandra:

It's relatively easy to set your computer so that they aren't aggravating your migraines.  Make sure the flicker or refresh rate is set above 75 on a CRT and as high as it will go on an LED monitor.   CRT's are better if you have trouble with migraines or other visual issues than LED's which have a bad tendency to various sorts of irregular screen flicker, sometimes due to electronic interference.   Turn down the brightness.   And watch your lighting.   Also keep the monitor the right distance from your face. 

Since this thread is about computer use and glaucoma, it is probably best if we stay on topic. I'd like to hear other input on computer monitors and CRT vs LCD issues. ("LED" above is a typo.) Everything I've read in the past indicates that LCD monitors are easier on the eyes, but that reading was not in conjunction with migranes. Maybe it is different where migranes are an issue.

I have read the Secret. I have two problems with the philosophy it espouses about the Law of Attraction. First of all, although in my own life I have generally feared the worst about things like medical tests, etc., the worst almost never happens. Secondly, if all illness is self-created, how do you explain childhood glaucoma? The "blame the victim" argument is just very hard to accept. I cannot believe that our neighbor's eight year old son attracted leukemia to himself by "wrong thinking." When I see animals fall ill, even develop something like glaucoma, I find it difficult to understand how that could be self created.

Kalinda:

I have read the Secret.

Have you also read Conversations With God by any chance? I've also been told that Ramtha: The White Book may better explain some of these questions.

It all makes perfect sense to me, but that wasn't always the case. The bottom line is do (and believe in) what works for you. I'm putting all my beliefs to the test based on extensive experimentation and data. Seeing the data has forced me to change many of my ideas, and in my case it led to me give a lot more credence to ideas such as those discussed in The Secret and other similar books. As a matter of fact, Think and Grow Rich is a similar book with concepts that could be applied to health just as easily as to money. Maybe you'll find its presentation of the concepts less disagreeable. 

I'm just talking about the Secret and not other belief systems, although yes, I've heard about and read others that are similarly based on the so-called Law of Attraction. Based on that logic, I have somehow attracted optic nerve damage by my thoughts, and by changing my thoughts to believe my optic nerve is healthy, it will be. But glaucoma patients cannot act as though they do not have glaucoma, which is a method the Secret generally advises. If you were able to convince yourself your optic nerves are healthy, you would not be taking your eye pressures many times a day because a person with healthy eyes does not feel the need to do this. People with healthy eyes do not go see glaucoma specialists and do not take glaucoma medications. So it seems to me as long as one keeps acting as though one has glaucoma, it would be impossible to change one's belief to thinking you no longer have it.

In one sense, I suppose I do use an aspect of this philosophy, although it's more my own belief in the power of words. I never say I have glaucoma. I say I was diagnosed with it, which is not the same thing and doesn't make it true.
 

Kalinda - thanks for sharing your thoughts. You raised some excellent points and I find myself largely in agreement with you.

I actually don't put much of my focus (or thoughts) on glaucoma (in terms of me having an incurrable disease). I fact, I generally follow the same rule you do about speaking of it. (But I don't force myself into awkward denials either, so if I have to discuss my health in terms others can understand, I do.) Isn't that interesting that we both have a similar idea in terms of "the power of words?"

I do put a lot of attention on intraocular pressure, as you know. However, I have proven to myself that elevated intraocular pressure is a temporary situation. In fact, it usually lasts no longer than my thoughts or emotions -- in other words, if my eye pressure is elevated, I take that as feedback that I'm doing something that isn't in tune with my goal to be healthy. I have discovered the things I need to change and, so far, 100% of the time I can quickly bring my intraocular pressure back down to a normal range by changing my thoughts, emotions and activities. (The quickness of the change can be anywhere from seconds to minutes to hours, depending on how far I let myself get out of balance. But even glaucoma medications usually take several hours to reduce eye pressure, so I feel my results are very quick.)

I actually consider my whole experience of glaucoma to be a blessing. I have found that monitoring my intraocular pressure has been an excellent way for me to learn how to live healthier. My entire physiology is benefitting from the things I'm doing now.

I do what I do (monitor my eye pressure) not because I am thinking about a disease, but because I am on a journey of self-discovery and on the path of being healthier in every way. I really enjoy all of it and there is no doubt that I have already become a better person because of this "situation."

I often wonder how instruments such as the Reichert Ocular Response Analyzer or the Pascal Dynamic Contour tonometer could be used outside the field of ophthalmology. I think they might be powerful instruments for researching stress reduction techniques, and they might even have application in athletic performance, brain research and other fields. This is, in fact, how I view a lot of my research -- and my own participation in high-frequency self-tonometry. It's all about better health and self-improvement. Therefore, my thoughts, words and actions are all focused on health and positive things. So maybe I do think and act as if I don't have glaucoma - but on the other hand, I have a new-found dedication to my overall health, so I am much better at taking care of myself than I was in the past and I'm doing things that anyone who wants to improve their health (including glaucoma patients) would benefit by doing. And I certainly follow the recommendations of my doctors (including my glaucoma specialist), but I do so from a state of mind that doesn't feel at all negative. In fact, my last visit to my glaucoma specialist was one of the most fun days I've had in the last six months. It was a total blast and I can't wait to go back! (I'm not just saying this to "think positively" because I don't believe in forced positive thinking. I'm  just sharing my true experience without coloring it.)

I assume that you have considered why this website is called "Fit Eyes" instead of some name based on a disease. And my blog is about intraocular pressure, not a disease per se. So, again, we are probably thinking along the same lines in many ways.

In terms of "The Secret", maybe we just have different understandings of what it is saying. To me, "The Secret" isn't saying anything new, and it isn't even necessarily saying the old things any better than they have already been said. But "The Secret" is getting people to talk about and think about all these things again, which I think is good. But if I had too, I could point out a lot of faults with "The Secret." We might even be in agreement about its shortcomings. But those shortcomings of not something I've really put any attention on because I still found that the movie left me with positive things to take away from it.