Jump to content

Menu

Does early reading hurt children's eyes???


Momof3
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just read an article by a mother who said her child ended up wearing "thick glasses" as a result of learning to read at 3yo, and reading thick chapter books by 4yo. My kids (oldest 2) have learned to read at 3, they *love* reading, read throughout the day... My third is 2yo. I'm planning to start him learning to read at 3 as well, provided he shows the same interest & capacity to learn that his older sibs did. Now I'm wondering... What says the community? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All kids are different.  My youngest, also an early reader, used to have perfect vision, but at 6 she was prescribed bifocals.  She spent so much of her time focused on books in front of her face (often in dim light), she made herself nearsighted.


Early reading is not the problem.  The problem is visual hygiene.  Kids need to switch between looking near and far, sit and hold books properly, make sure they have proper lighting, etc.  It's like anything else - voracious readers may need to be nudged to put down their books long enough to get some exercise, do chores, etc, until they develop healthy habits.

 

I recommend that anyone with questions about their kids' vision go to a developmental  optometrist for a comprehensive exam.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading a study (I forgot where) that claimed that kids who were more likely to become nearsighted also were more likely to be able to control their vision enough for early reading -- iow, it's a correlation rather than a causation.

 

Might or might not be true, again, I forgot where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctors say no, but I don't know. My early reader now wears bifocals. He developed strabismus by age 4. Started reading about 3, all on his own. He did, and does, love books. From what I understand, kids are naturally farsighted and not meant for close up work that young. I believe the strain to get them to focus at a close distance, to read, ended up crossing his eyes. He was farsighted, with perfect vision, yet needing bifocals or surgery. The doctors say no. It could be he was prone to strabismus at any age, but I often wonder...

That said, my other two were early readers as well, not quite as avid, and also not quite as farsighted. They did not develop strabismus.

If I knew then what I know now, I'm thinking I'd get their eyes checked and see if there are any focussing issues. Ie are they farsighted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from the prevention section of the article linked above:

 

 

Outdoor activity

The positive effect of outdoor activity for reducing myopic progression has been documented in numerous studies. Physical activity, sports, and low accommodative demands have been postulated as the cause of this protective effect. The Sydney Myopia Study in 2008 demonstrated a significant reduction in the prevalence of myopia in children who spent more time outdoors. After adjusting for time spent on near work, parental refractive error and ethnicity, they showed that increased time spent outdoors, rather than physical activity was associated with less myopia32. The authors of the article suggest that light intensity when outdoors may be the contributing factor, by increasing depth of field and decreasing image blur. They also comment on the possible effects of light on the release of dopamine from the retina which is an eye growth inhibitor. Although the nature of this protective factor has yet to be determined, outdoor activity does appear to have positive effects for slowing myopic progression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked our pediatric opthalmologist about this because my two older kids started needing glasses (and one patching) within a year of learning to read, and she said it was coincidental. My little one got glasses around the same age, and she's not yet reading. DH also got glasses before he learned to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read an article by a mother who said her child ended up wearing "thick glasses" as a result of learning to read at 3yo, and reading thick chapter books by 4yo. 

 

I believe that this is a myth.  Certainly in our house, the earliest reader has perfect vision, whilst the slightly later reader is very short-sighted, just like his dad.

 

 

 

Outdoor activity

The positive effect of outdoor activity for reducing myopic progression has been documented in numerous studies. Physical activity, sports, and low accommodative demands have been postulated as the cause of this protective effect. The Sydney Myopia Study in 2008 demonstrated a significant reduction in the prevalence of myopia in children who spent more time outdoors. After adjusting for time spent on near work, parental refractive error and ethnicity, they showed that increased time spent outdoors, rather than physical activity was associated with less myopia32. The authors of the article suggest that light intensity when outdoors may be the contributing factor, by increasing depth of field and decreasing image blur. They also comment on the possible effects of light on the release of dopamine from the retina which is an eye growth inhibitor. Although the nature of this protective factor has yet to be determined, outdoor activity does appear to have positive effects for slowing myopic progression.

 

 

This does make me wonder.  I used to force Calvin outside for an hour each day, but otherwise he spent almost all his time horizontal on a sofa.  He's the one with perfect vision.  My outdoorsy, physical child is the one with the very short sight.  I think it's genetics.

 

L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a myth. For every "early reader who needed glasses" anecdote there is an "early reader who didn't need glasses anecdote". Personally, I learned to read at the age of 2, have been a voracious reader throughout my life (often reading in low light or for long periods at a time). At the age of 42 I still don't need glasses. I think it's mostly genetic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it is proven to be true, but in our house it seems to have worked out that way. My youngest taught herself to read at three, she's now nearsighted, and just had her prescription changed for the third time in 18 months. It's probably just genetics, and there is nothing I could or would have done to discourage her early reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a theory.  Totally unfounded hairbrained theory without any type of scientific basis, but a theory, that SOME early readers might be tending towards myopia anyway, and thus spend more time doing short-distance focal length tasks such as reading, because it is easier for their eyeballs than say, catching a ball from a distance.  Thus because they spend more time at it, might get better at it relative to some peers.  Thus lending additional credence to the idea that early reading can cause those thick glasses.

 

Anyway that's my crazy idea.  In actuality I think it's mostly genetic.  I was an early reader who needed a nice thick set of glasses by fourth grade, when someone finally noticed I couldn't read the blackboard.  I noticed this morning that my 9yo can't read the clock on the oven from the dining table 10 feet away, so I guess he's right on schedule.  :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was an early reader too (not super early, probably about age 4.5?), and quite myopic, though nobody knew how myopic I was until 3rd grade.  Everything more than about 7" away was blurry.  Obviously it was more fun to read a book than to squint and try to figure out what was happening at a distance.

 

I did spend lots of time playing outdoors, though.  I didn't read nearly as much as kids these days.  In my case, I think I was just destined to be nearsighted.  Everyone in my family eventually had eye issues.  Actually the earliest reader, my kid sister, was the only one who got to adulthood with perfect vision (it has deteriorated since then).

 

Another thing.  I was told by one of my eye doctors that squinting was making me more nearsighted.  (Not sure if that was BS.)  I didn't squint to read; I squinted to see distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All anecdotal, but here's our experience:

Husband--read at 4 and has always read constantly (lit major), no need for glasses until about age 45 (for presbyopia)

Me--read early (don't know age) and still read constantly, needed glasses for myopia starting in late elementary school

daughter---read at 4 (now 13), reads voraciously, opthamologist says she may need glasses a little earlier than most in her 40s because of a slight tendency to farsightedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found that my DS's eyes didn't keep pace with his brain, and that he couldn't focus on small or dense text when he was 3-4 even if he could technically read all the words. It seems at 5.5 that his vision/brain have developed quite a bit.

 

I do agree that kids need to be taught to take eye breaks. I spent much of middle school with a headache every afternoon for. to doing this enough!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the eye strain. My dad and FIL have perfect eyesight. My mother and MIL have near perfect eyesight.  My hubby has high degree spectacles due to nearsightedness because he does not remember to take breaks.  He also lets his shadow falls on the book instead of positioning his light source correctly.   When my eyes are tired or my kids eyes are tired, the eye exam doesn't give accurate results.  I have to make sure my bookworm has a good night sleep the day before his eye exam. He squints when he wakes up if he slept late but no squinting when he is well rested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard optometrists say this, though.  They say that in countries where schools start all kids reading young (like 4yo), more kids have vision problems.  This came up in the context of my kid, then 3, needing vision therapy.  This was not my early reader, though; this was the kid who was very slow to remember even a handful of letters or to be able to copy even the first letter of her name.  The one who, as a tot, always ran the other way when a book came out (for a readaloud or for talking about the pictures), and who didn't even like looking at a TV screen.  Because the eye problem predated the reading stuff.

 

Probably the truth is that *some* kids' eyes are vulnerable to the type of eye strain involved in book learning.  Like anything, the physical aspects of reading can be overdone, and the eyes do change depending on how they are used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DH is an ophthalmologist…and he says "poppycock."

 

However, they have found that lack of exposure to sunlight can cause myopia in kids.  This is why they think that Asian kids tend to have higher rates of myopia…as they are in school….and then cram schools, etc.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-15427954

 

"An analysis of eight previous studies by University of Cambridge researchers found that for each additional hour spent outside per week, the risk of myopia reduced by 2%.

Exposure to natural light and time spent looking at distant objects could be key factors, they said."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DH is an ophthalmologist…and he says "poppycock."

 

However, they have found that lack of exposure to sunlight can cause myopia in kids. This is why they think that Asian kids tend to have higher rates of myopia…as they are in school….and then cram schools, etc.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-15427954

 

"An analysis of eight previous studies by University of Cambridge researchers found that for each additional hour spent outside per week, the risk of myopia reduced by 2%.

Exposure to natural light and time spent looking at distant objects could be key factors, they said."

Here is another article summarizing research that links too little outdoor time to higher rates of myopia.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/urban-eyes

 

I have tried to make sure my kids spend a significant amount of time outdoors. I thought about the research when I sign my kids up for activities. I try and choose outside sports (ex. Soccer and baseball) over indoor sports (basketball or indoor swimming).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also anecdotal, but both my sister and I were early readers. I read in very bad light (the streetlight a block away when Mom caught me and took away my flashlight) and am extremely nearsighted. My sister didn't share my insomnia and/or stupidity, put her book away and went to sleep when she was told, and only needed glasses for driving.

 

My adult kids were given book lights and not punished for reading "after bedtime" as long as they were quiet and stayed in bed. Both of them have perfect vision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My eldest sister read at age 2 and needed glasses before she started school. I started at age 4 and needed glasses when I was 11 years old and have never needed them with as high a strength as my sister has. Her eldest started reading at 3 and does not wear glasses (she is 7 now). My eldest started at 2 and is not wearing glasses (she is 6.5). I think there is much more to it than early reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We position our desks and reading chairs by windows. Either facing the window or in a way that allows a view outside by a slight turn of the head. When we glance up from reading or writing, our eyes are given a chance to look into the far distance. Not sure it makes any difference, but it at least gives both the mind and eyes a break. We also spend time out-of-doors.

 

I imagine that like most issues, it's a mix of nature/nurture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was an early reader, and I'm the only kid in my family that didn't need glasses. My sister had a THICK prescription in elementary school, and my brother found out he needed an even thicker prescription when he tried to get his driver's license and failed the eye exam (my mom took me to the eye doctor before the driver's test, just in case :D).

 

My DH has very bad eyesight. Without his contacts, he just sees blobs of color. When the eye doctor walks in, he says, "Hello, Dr. Blue Blob." :) He was not an early reader. He learned to read in school with the other kids.

 

Of my 3 children, 2 were early readers. My oldest has not been checked recently, but his eyesight appears to be excellent still. I plan to get him checked this year. His last check was around age 5, I think. His eyesight was perfect then. My youngest hasn't been checked yet. My middle is a later reader (just now starting to be able to read grade 1 "real books" at age 7), and his eyes have been checked. He's slightly nearsighted, but not enough to need glasses. That's what I've been since I was about 6 or so. I'm in my late 30s now and still don't need glasses (got checked last summer).

 

I think it's genetics, not reading. My kids could really go either way genetically. I do notice that my DH said he didn't need glasses until he was around 7. His eyes were fine, and then they weren't. I think I read that that's a pretty normal occurrence around that age.

 

I do not limit my early readers from reading, and I do kick them outside for hours at a time quite regularly. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard optometrists say this, though.  They say that in countries where schools start all kids reading young (like 4yo), more kids have vision problems.  This came up in the context of my kid, then 3, needing vision therapy.  This was not my early reader, though; this was the kid who was very slow to remember even a handful of letters or to be able to copy even the first letter of her name.  The one who, as a tot, always ran the other way when a book came out (for a readaloud or for talking about the pictures), and who didn't even like looking at a TV screen.  Because the eye problem predated the reading stuff.

 

Probably the truth is that *some* kids' eyes are vulnerable to the type of eye strain involved in book learning.  Like anything, the physical aspects of reading can be overdone, and the eyes do change depending on how they are used.

 

This is true, but it doesn't mean that reading young is actually causing the higher rates of vision problems. It is only a correlation. The higher rates of vision problems in those countries could be caused by genetic predisposition, less opportunities to play outside in natural light as the eyes are developing, or any number of other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of my 5 siblings, I started reading earliest and had to get glasses the earliest. We all have vision problems to some extent though. I would guess genetics with early reading having some influence. I haven't heard of outdoor time influencing vision before, but that makes sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son has been reading since he was two. He has slight myopia and astigmatism which is not entirely abnormal. His ophthalmologist has prescribed him reading glasses to help prevent myopia. And yes reading, or any close work, can cause enough stress to shorten vision.

Other than wearing glasses there are other things a parent can do. Ensure reading material is a substantial distance away from the eyes. And take periodic breaks and focus on something in the distance, preferably outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only one of mine was an early reader *and* nearsighted. The others were either early readers with normal vision (as was I...no glasses) or were on time readers with vision issues like strabismus, tracking issues or nearsightedness. My husband included

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally silly, I didn't learn to read until 7 and I have horrible vision and "thick" glasses :) 

 

ODS was reading at 2.5 (yes, really sounding out CVC words on his own and understanding them) and I even once asked the eye doctor when I was there if it could be bad for his eyes. She said absolutely not, unless he was reading maybe in the dark or for an excessive amount of time and even then there's really not any hard and fast proof that would affect vision on a child with otherwise good sight. He's 5.5 and reads extensively and no vision problems whatsoever. My 12 year old foster-adopt DD can't read at all yet wears glasses. I think it's just genetic typically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also anecdotal, but both my sister and I were early readers. I read in very bad light (the streetlight a block away when Mom caught me and took away my flashlight) and am extremely nearsighted. My sister didn't share my insomnia and/or stupidity, put her book away and went to sleep when she was told, and only needed glasses for driving.

 

My adult kids were given book lights and not punished for reading "after bedtime" as long as they were quiet and stayed in bed. Both of them have perfect vision.

 

 

This is too funny, I had the exact same experience! I can't count the number of times I got in trouble for reading at night....so many that I wasn't allowed to own flashlights and still consider it a sign of adulthood that I have full access to flashlights, lol! My children are never punished for reading at night and I leave a closet light on for them to read by. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DH and I were both early readers. My vision was horrible until I had LASIK and his vision has always been better than 20/20. We're really hoping DD, also an early reader, inherited DH's eyesight. I figure genetics must be far more important than reading age on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The myth started because there was a correlation between early reading and myopia. It was later found that this correlation was entirely due to the children spending so much time indoors, as pp linked. After correcting for indoor time and genetics the correlation between early reading and myopia completely disappeared, meaning none of the effect was due to reading age. I still see a lot of better-late-than-early supporters repeating this myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that the time people notice myopia is when the child learns to read.  It's more when they need to read stuff written on a board/wall at some distance, which is not the case with kids who teach themselves to read before school age.  Personally, I was "legally blind" and yet I had no problem reading a book held in my hands.  In fact, for a while as a teen, I would wear only one contact lens, since I could read my books more easily without the correction.

 

I took my eldest (not an early reader) to an ophthalmologist when she was 2.5, because I noticed some odd things and because her birth family has a history of vision problems.  Most people were surprised that I noticed anything.  I happened to see a lot of different vision problems in my family growing up, so I was probably more aware of the signs.  Still, I was surprised how bad her astigmatism was, and how many things she was noticing for the first time after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that the time people notice myopia is when the child learns to read. It's more when they need to read stuff written on a board/wall at some distance, which is not the case with kids who teach themselves to read before school age. Personally, I was "legally blind" and yet I had no problem reading a book held in my hands. In fact, for a while as a teen, I would wear only one contact lens, since I could read my books more easily without the correction.

 

I took my eldest (not an early reader) to an ophthalmologist when she was 2.5, because I noticed some odd things and because her birth family has a history of vision problems. Most people were surprised that I noticed anything. I happened to see a lot of different vision problems in my family growing up, so I was probably more aware of the signs. Still, I was surprised how bad her astigmatism was, and how many things she was noticing for the first time after that.

Point taken. I got my son tested when he started using the computer and read though because he put the book right uo to his face and said the screen was blurry. His vision is fine but he is less far sighted than normal for his age which may result in being short sighted after. My mother is extremely short sighted (as in legally blind in one eye and just short of it in the other) she can hardly see the book and certainly couldn't read it. I am far less short sighted and can read fine without glasses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense about the outdoors being the important thing.  I am a pale red-head and I remember when SPF 15 first hit the stores.  So, I am naturally a bit sun-phobic.  Without my glasses, I can totally relate to the Blob idea.  I think I am a -8

My husband on the other hand spent vast amounts of time outdoors.  He has never had glasses.  He could maybe use some from reading street signs while driving.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister was much more outdoorsy than me, so that makes sense. I'm a -6.50 for safe driving, so I see a bit more than blobs of colour (I can count my feet but not my toes) and it seemed like a small price to pay for the joy and comfort I got from reading as a child until I hit bifocal/reading glasses complicated by classism, i.e., I don't currently have a job than involves reading so my previous eye doctor didn't think I needed or deserved to be literate.

 

From the perspective of a literate small child, withholding reading material is cruel and unusual punishment. Please don't do it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...