Speed reading courses have been selling this promise since the 1950s. The industry generates millions in revenue from techniques that research consistently shows don’t work as advertised. Here are the five biggest speed reading myths you need to stop believing.
Myth #1: “Eliminate Subvocalization to Read Faster”
This is perhaps the most damaging of all speed reading myths. The claim: that inner voice pronouncing words in your head is a speed bottleneck. Eliminate it, and you’ll read at the speed of sight rather than the speed of speech.
Subvocalization limits you to speaking speed (~150-200 wpm). Suppress it, and you can process text visually at 1,000+ wpm.
Why it’s wrong: Subvocalization isn’t a bug — it’s a feature. Research consistently shows that internal speech supports comprehension, especially for complex material. When forced to suppress subvocalization (by humming or repeating unrelated words while reading), comprehension drops dramatically.
Yes, you can reduce subvocalization. But complete elimination is nearly impossible for most readers, and the attempt typically hurts more than it helps. The inner voice helps maintain words in working memory while you integrate meaning across sentences.
Subvocalization supports comprehension. Skilled readers naturally subvocalize less on easy material and more on difficult text — this automatic adjustment is more effective than forced suppression.
Myth #2: “Train Your Eyes to Move Faster”
Speed reading courses often include eye exercises — tracking moving objects, expanding peripheral vision, reducing fixation duration. The premise is that faster eye movements mean faster reading.
Your eyes are the bottleneck. Train them to move faster and fixate less, and reading speed will increase proportionally.
Why it’s wrong: Eye movements aren’t the limiting factor in reading speed — cognitive processing is. Your eyes can move across text very quickly; the bottleneck is how fast your brain can extract meaning from what you see.
Eye-tracking research shows that skilled readers already have efficient eye movements. Fixations average 200-250ms, and saccades (the jumps between fixations) take only 20-40ms. Trying to speed these up doesn’t improve comprehension — it degrades it.
Studies find no correlation between eye movement training and improved reading comprehension. When readers artificially speed up eye movements, they simply fail to process what they “read.” For more on how eyes actually work during reading, explore our Reading Mechanics pillar.
Myth #3: “Read Multiple Lines at Once”
Some programs claim you can train yourself to see multiple lines simultaneously, processing entire paragraphs in a single glance. This sounds impressive — and it’s complete fiction.
With practice, you can expand your visual intake to see and comprehend multiple lines of text at the same time.
Why it’s wrong: Human visual acuity simply doesn’t work this way. High-resolution vision is limited to a small area called the fovea — about 2 degrees of visual angle. Outside this zone, acuity drops rapidly. You can’t “train” basic optics.
Your perceptual span — the area from which you can extract useful information during reading — extends about 3-4 characters to the left and 14-15 characters to the right of fixation for English readers. This is a fundamental constraint, not a skill limitation.
You cannot meaningfully expand your perceptual span through training. Claims of seeing “whole pages at once” involve skimming, not reading — and comprehension suffers accordingly.
Myth #4: “Never Regress (Read Backwards)”
Regressions — backward eye movements to re-read earlier text — are portrayed as bad habits that waste time. Speed reading instruction often emphasizes eliminating regressions entirely.
Skilled readers never look back. Regressions are a sign of poor reading that you should train yourself to eliminate.
Why it’s wrong: Regressions are essential comprehension tools. Eye-tracking studies show that all readers — including highly skilled ones — make regressions about 10-15% of the time. These backward movements serve crucial functions.
Regressions help when: you misread a word, you encounter unexpected syntactic structures, you need to integrate information across sentences, or you realize you missed something important. Eliminating regressions means eliminating comprehension repairs.
Skilled readers actually make more strategic regressions than poor readers — they return to exactly where the comprehension problem occurred. Suppressing regressions typically increases reading speed but devastates understanding.
Myth #5: “RSVP (One Word at a Time) Apps Work”
Apps like Spritz flash single words in rapid succession at a fixed point, eliminating the need for eye movements entirely. They promise effortless speed reading through technology.
By removing eye movements from the equation, RSVP technology lets you read 500-1,000+ wpm effortlessly.
Why it’s wrong: RSVP technology eliminates the very mechanisms that support comprehension. You can’t regress when words have already disappeared. You can’t vary your pace based on difficulty. You can’t pause to think about a complex sentence.
Research on RSVP reading consistently shows worse comprehension compared to normal reading at the same speed. The format works against how reading naturally operates — it trades comprehension for apparent speed.
RSVP apps demonstrate that speed reading doesn’t work as advertised. The technology removes essential reading mechanisms, and comprehension suffers as a result. Flashy interfaces don’t change cognitive limits.
What This Means for Your Reading
The reading faster myths persist because they’re appealing. Who wouldn’t want to read 1,000 wpm with full comprehension? The problem is that decades of research point in the same direction: there’s no free lunch.
Speed and comprehension trade off. Always. You can read faster — but comprehension drops. You can maintain comprehension — but speed has limits. The ceiling for skilled readers with good comprehension hovers around 400-600 wpm, depending on material difficulty and reader expertise.
This doesn’t mean you can’t improve. Evidence-based approaches to faster reading do exist:
- Build vocabulary. Knowing more words means less pausing to decode or infer meaning.
- Expand domain knowledge. Familiarity with a subject reduces processing load.
- Practice strategically. Skimming for overview, scanning for specific information, and deep reading for comprehension are different modes — use them appropriately.
- Reduce unnecessary regressions. This doesn’t mean eliminating regressions, but reading with better focus reduces aimless re-reading.
These approaches work because they address the actual bottleneck: cognitive processing. Eye tricks and subvocalization suppression don’t help because they target the wrong problem.
Save your money on speed reading courses. Invest in reading more, building knowledge, and developing vocabulary. These boring, unsexy approaches actually work — even if they can’t promise 1,000 wpm miracles. For evidence-based approaches, explore our Reading Concepts library.
Frequently Asked Questions
Skip the Myths. Build Real Skills.
Forget gimmicks — real reading improvement comes from practice with quality material. Get 365 articles with expert analysis and 1,098 comprehension questions to build genuine reading expertise.
Start Learning →92 More Reading Concepts Await
You’ve seen through the speed reading myths. Now discover what actually works — eye movement science, comprehension strategies, memory techniques, and every skill that builds genuine reading expertise.
All Reading Mechanics Articles
