Bates method: ditching glasses with eye exercises, or just quackery?

Bates method: exercises to give up glasses, between faith and skepticism

Can you restore your vision without going under the knife? The Bates method, a system of eye exercises devised almost a century ago by William Bates, claims that myopia and other refractive errors are not irreversible. The core idea: the eye is not a passive camera, but an organ with muscles — the ciliary and extraocular ones — that can be retrained. The promise is tempting: fewer diopters, or none at all, without laser or glasses. The problem is that the scientific evidence does not back it up.

In Spain, refractive surgery with LASIK technology has become the real alternative. A case cited in consumer forums tells of a patient who went from -6.50 and -6.75 diopters to a residual myopia that requires no glasses, after having surgery in a Latin American country for 500 euros. Four and a half years later, zero problems. The contrast with the Bates method is stark: immediate results versus years of exercises whose effectiveness is unproven.

What science says about the Bates method

Conventional ophthalmology is blunt: the Bates method has no solid scientific basis. High myopia — the kind exceeding 6 diopters — is usually caused by an elongation of the eyeball, a structural change that no exercise can reverse. As one participant sums it up: "If your myopia has to do with elongation of the eye, there is nothing to be done." Pseudomyopia, on the other hand, is a different matter: it occurs when the ciliary muscle contracts from spending hours in front of screens. There, relaxation and improvement are indeed possible.

The problem is that the line between the two is not always clear. An ophthalmologist from Logroño, cited in the discussion, explains that the drops used in clinics serve precisely to measure fixed myopia, the non-recoverable kind. At opticians' shops, optometrists cannot use those drops — they are a medication — and the prescription may include that reversible part. That is why some users report improvements with exercises: perhaps they did not recover vision, but rather reduced their false myopia.

The vision business: courses, books and pills

The Bates method is free at its core: there are books, international forums and videos. But packaged courses also circulate, such as the one titled "Mejora tu visión" (Improve Your Vision) by Gabriel Lema, sold as a natural solution. The suspicion of money-grabbing quackery hangs over the sector. The market logic is relentless: if it worked, ophthalmology clinics would apply it, because a months-long course leaves more margin than a LASIK machine. Or not.

Beyond Bates, the debate drifts toward other products. Lutein, a carotenoid with supposed benefits for macular degeneration and tired eyes, comes up as a supplement. A participant with dry eyes from hours of screen time says he has ordered a jar and promises to report results. The evidence here is stronger than for Bates, but it is not miraculous either.

Testimonials: from faith to giving up

Personal cases are the heart of the matter. One participant claims to have tried the method and that "it works," but gave up for lack of consistency: "I lost the gains within a couple of months." Another knows someone who improved by several diopters 20 years ago by traveling weekly to Madrid for sessions with an ophthalmologist. Consistency is the Achilles' heel: like losing belly fat through exercise, it works if you do it, and hardly anyone does.

Some reduce it to common sense: wearing glasses with a weaker prescription to force focusing, looking into the distance, taking a break every 15 minutes. Cheap measures that, at best, keep myopia from pogre. At worst, they do nothing. The question remains open: how many of those testimonials are real improvement, and how many are simple muscle relaxation?

---

Surgery, meanwhile, keeps advancing. LASIK is no longer a pipe dream and has become a procedure with measurable results. A century on, the Bates method still fails to pass the filter of evidence. Is it worth a try? If the cost is zero and you stay consistent, maybe. If you are looking for a definitive solution, the scalpel — or the laser — still leads the way.