Plus lens therapy is the theory that most myopia is environmentally triggered and that conventional corrective minus lenses increase nearsightedness over time. Thus the hypothesis that applying plus lenses for nearsightedness will invert the environmental pressures and halt or reverse existing myopia.

What is the scientific majority and minority opinion on plus lens therapy?

  • $\begingroup$ Are there any sources on this theory that are non-commercial? $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Oct 23, 2014 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris I've found a variety of sources of differing levels of empirical induction on plus-lens but as yet no clear conclusions from scientists; as least in the limited places I've looked (I'm not a biologist). Since the therapy only requires $10 plus lens, commercial incentives are limited. $\endgroup$ Oct 23, 2014 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ Personal anecdotal evidence: After a year of +1 diopter lens, my permanent eyesight has improved somewhat (was only mild myopia to begin with) in a 8 - 12 hour x 7 day a week computer environment; where I've worn lenses about half the time. As plus lens are only a partial replication of natural long distance, I suspect you could run the risk of strabismus if you undercorrect too much at short distances relative to your level of myopia. Hasn't happened to me, but then I no longer get a decent blur point at +1 and will probably need to increase to +1.5 to progress closer to 20:20 or higher. $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2015 at 4:17

2 Answers 2


Plus lens therapy can indeed reverse myopia, but it does take time. Your eyes did not develop myopia in a few days.

The eye represents its environment. Fitting chicks, monkeys etc. with minus lenses always INCREASED the amount of myopia, while plus lenses always reduced myopia and resulted in hyperopia (lens compensation).

Putting monkeys in a confined environment showed a myopic shift. Monkeys in an open environment showed a refractive state about +1.00 diopters.

IMPORTANT: As I have said: Unfortunately, it does take time! Do not expect results after 1 week of plus lens therapy. That is why so many people give up and think that myopia is irreversible. You also do not build muscles after 1 week.

Kind regards.


Optical defocus and effects in HUMANS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592235 Defocus on chicks: http://www.iovs.org/content/44/7/2818.full Monkeys in a confined environment: http://www.iovs.org/content/2/6/571.short

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to Bio SE. It is recommended to provide some references- specially for some of the statements in your answer. For example, could you cite the research done in monkeys? Or any other research supporting that plus lens reverse myopia? $\endgroup$
    – ddiez
    Nov 3, 2014 at 16:12

The human eye is dynamic and always represents its visual environment. Thus, why was myopia so rare in early mankind, but now so present?

It can not be only caused by genetics. The worst thing you could do is wearing your full minus lens prescription while doing near work. When you think of how your myopia initially started (a lot of near work) and then you wear your minus (unfortunately, often over-prescribed), you are in your "initial" state again. And the cycle repeats itself - over and over again.

By reversing myopia, you must also consider prevention. When you do a lot of near work (long-term), wear plus lens to protect your eyes. It makes your eyes as if they are looking in the distance and thus relaxing your eyes effectively.

Try the following: Measure your Snellen score, then do near work for 3 hours or so and then check your Snellen again. You will see your sight will get worse (in this case temporarily). If you continue, your eyes will adapt and become myopic.

Unfortunately, plus lens therapy is not mainstream. Often people say "it does not help" or "it causes cataracts" and so forth. But therapy needs to be applied over a long-timeframe. Consider it as a "long-term diet".

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you support your assertions with any decent studies? $\endgroup$ Dec 5, 2014 at 21:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to biology stack exchange. We usually ask for answers to provide some citation to support their conclusions, and I can't find the references you say you added in your first sentence. I would also suggest you change the style of the answer, the capitol letters and bold text makes the answer appear confrontational and the overall tone of the answer appears very opinion based. $\endgroup$
    – user137
    Dec 5, 2014 at 21:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .