The top countries in the world for health care all offer totally public, universal systems — with life expectancies that rival, and even trump, the U.S.

Until we’re ready to part with our massive military and widening waistlines, the United States has little hope of making the list of top countries for health care. Our privatized system has yet to live up to the affordability of socialized, single-payer systems, no matter how user-friendly our website is. For a nation that so routinely dominates, the truth is we may have to take a page out of other countries’ books for once.

Last month, International Living released its Global Retirement Index for 2014, a list of countries ranked according to the efficiency of their health care system and how well they make for retirement destinations. Here are the top 5:

5. Mexico

Medical tourism has ballooned south-of-the-border because of the United States’ increasingly high prescription drug costs. Health insurance costs roughly $300 per year in Mexico, with private plans costing more but still far less than what its neighbor to the north charges.

Despite its recent status as the most obese country in the world, Mexico only ranks a handful of places below the U.S. in life expectancy, with female life expectancy still exceeding ours. And if for whatever reason you find yourself in the hospital in Mexico, be grateful you’re only paying $35 for the night, not $1,700 like you would in America.

4. Costa Rica

Costa Rica barely edges out the U.S. in its life expectancy, at 76.8 years, but manages to do so with one-seventh the per capita expenditures and a dual public/private system that ensures all citizens can get coverage. Known as caja, the public system of health care in Costa Rica is constantly being upgraded with new equipment, technology, and educated personnel.

Retirees, or pensionados, are entitled to full coverage on medical services provided the beneficiary has a monthly income greater than $1,000, whether it’s from Social Security, disability benefits, a pension, or a similar source. There are no caveats or restrictions set on people because of their age or pre-existing conditions.

3. Malaysia

The public health care system in Malaysia isn’t available to foreigners, but their private system may be just as good. Under the system, doctors’ visits cost $16 and dental appointments cost $9. Their per capita expenditure is actually lower than Costa Rica’s $1,197, at only $645 per person. And the highly affordable insurance premiums make for heavily reduced costs — a generally healthy man in his fifties should expect a yearly premium of $400 to $1,000, depending on his plan.

2. Uruguay

A close runner-up, Uruguay has a health care system that is largely private but with a free public safety net. Patients pay their doctors directly, according to a monthly plan that entitles them to everything from regular check-ups to major surgery. Pre-existing conditions are also a non-issue for seniors, as people aged 60 and up seldom are turned away just because they wish to use the system for its purpose.

Uruguay’s per capita expenditure on health care is also comparatively low, at $1,132 U.S. To put it in perspective, in America that number is $8,233.

1. France

France takes the top spot because of its dual approach to health care. The country has both privatized and publicly available options, which either require patients to pay small, heavily subsidized amounts of money out-of-pocket or rely on the Social Security system to cover the costs.

In France, the lines of communication between physicians and patients are extremely open. The red tape Americans have become accustomed to, further muddled by bickering insurance companies, is replaced by an overabundance of doctors that deal directly with patients and encourage their free choice of health care providers. Now if only they could do something about all those cigarettes.

We believe that each of us showers at least once a day! This habit is thought to be praised, but experts say that we should not do it, especially over the winter days.



The Medical University of San Diego conveyed an interesting study. The team of experts, led by Dr. Casey Carlos, claims that everyday showering is not good for our skin. This is especially true during the winter period.

In winter, the skin is more sensitive, drier and subjected to numerous impairments, which is not the case in summer. You might have noticed that your skin on your hands over the winter period is heavily damaged. This is what happens to whole body skin. Dr. C. Carlos says that it is very important how we take a shower.



It is important not to use hot water, which is often used during the winter, but it is very harmful. Also, it is important and how we use the soap. You don’t need to soap the entire body! It is much healthier to soap the “crucial” parts of the body, such as armpits, feet, intimate parts. The skin regenerates and cleans itself and therefore does not need long-term soaping.

Furthermore, if you cannot stop showering with hot water and a detailed soaping, you need to apply a body lotion after showering. It is important to nourish and moisturize the skin.

Newari Culture

४ भदौ, काठमाडौैं । तीन दशक पुग्न लाग्ने नेपाली चेली नाज्मा साइब्लर श्रेष्ठले युरोपेली आमाहरुलाई नेपालका नेवार समुदायमा प्रचलित नवजात शिशुलाई तेल मालिस गर्ने परम्परागत तरिकाबारे जानकारी दिन थालेको छ ।

सन् १९८३ मा स्वीट्जरल्यान्ड, जुरिकमा पहिलो छोरी जन्मेलगत्तै परम्परागत तेल मालिसका निम्ति नेपालबाट आफ्नी आमा हरिदेवी श्रेष्ठलाई बोलाएर सुरु भएको यो तरिका यतिखेर युरोपका अधिकांश देशमा विस्तार भएको नाज्माको भनाइ रहेको नागरिकमा खबर छ ।

हरिदेवीले पहिलो नातिनी जमुना मायालाई अस्पतालमै तेल मालिस गर्न खोज्दा नर्सहरुले अचम्म मानेको उनको भनाइ छ । ‘शिशुलाई केही बिराम भएको छैन । किन मालिस गर्न लागेको भन्दै ती नर्सले सोधेकी थिइन् । यसपछि मात्रै स्वीसहरुले शिशुहरु बिरामी हुँदा या अफ्ठ्यारो मानेका बखत मात्रै मालिस गर्दा रहेछन् भन्ने लाग्यो र मैले नेवारी तरिकाको मालिस स्वीसहरुलाई चिनाइ छाड्छु भन्ने प्रण गरेँ,’ नाम्जाले भनिन् ।

स्वीस नागरिक डा जियोभानी साइब्लरसँग दाम्पत्य जीवन विताइराखेकी नाज्माले युरोपका विभिन्न मुलुकमा यस विधिबारे तालिम पनि दिइसकेकी छन् ।

Sep 2, 2015- According to a study, a free toothbrush timer app makes brushing teeth fun for youngsters actually improves dental hygiene of users.

This app named “Brush DJ” plays music for two minutes which is the optimum time for brushing teeth.

Along with encouraging tooth brushing for two minutes, it also reminds users to spit out after brushing but not to rinse, sets reminders to brush twice a day, use a mouthwash at other non-brushing times of the day, sets alerts for dental appointments and reminders to change toothbrushes once every three months.

“The results of our study indicate that apps such as Brush DJ are beneficial to users and open the way for further research to extend their use and effectiveness," said lead researcher Ben Underwood from Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry in England. The study appeared in the British Dental Journal.

The research showed that 70 per cent of respondents reported their teeth felt cleaner since using the app and 88 per cent said that Brush DJ had motivated them to brush their teeth for longer.

The research team concluded that not only had Brush DJ contributed to greater motivation for young people to care for their teeth more effectively, but it also has huge potential as a way to convey important oral health messages and information.

High-intensity exercise, usually in the form of short bursts of very arduous intervals interspersed with rest, has much to recommend it

A Way to Get Fit and Also Have Fun

Can exercise that is intense also be fun?

Researchers in Denmark recently began delving into that issue and in the process developed a new approach to intense interval training that could appeal even to those of us who, until now, have been disinclined to push ourselves during exercise.

High-intensity exercise, usually in the form of short bursts of very arduous intervals interspersed with rest, has much to recommend it. Many studies have shown that even a few minutes of these intervals can substantially improve health and cardiovascular fitness. But high-intensity interval workouts have a drawback that is seldom acknowledged. Many people don’t like them and soon abandon the program.

In a telling study published last year, researchers in New Zealand asked overweight, out-of-shape adults to complete three months of high-intensity interval training, using one of two common types of training programmes. One consisted of either four minutes of fast jogging, a rest, and four more minutes of strenuous jogging. The other consisted of 30 seconds of all-out effort, followed by rest, and was repeated three times.

Some of the exercisers’

sessions were supervised, and some were supposed to be done on their own.

Both programmes would have been expected to round the volunteer into much better shape.

They didn’t. Few of the participants became significantly more fit, especially in the 30-second hard interval group. The probable reason, the researchers speculate, was that most of the participants had quit doing most or all of their assigned exercise early on in the study.

This finding and others like it troubled Jens Bangsbo, a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, who studies high-intensity interval training. In studies at his lab, repeated hard intervals had almost invariably made people fitter, faster and healthier. But those studies typically had involved highly motivated athletes riding high-tech stationary bicycles and had been supervised by the scientists, who personally had cajoled the participants to complete each interval.

Those were hardly real-world circumstances, Dr Bangsbo realised. So he and his colleagues began to wonder if there might be more practical and palatable approaches to high-intensity interval training.

“We wanted to create a workout that could be employed by everyone, from the non-experienced person to the elite athlete,” Dr Bangsbo said. After some trial and error, they came up with a candidate routine and named it 10-20-30 training. It has become my favourite interval programme.

The essentials of 10-20-30 training are simple. Run, ride or perhaps row on a rowing machine gently for 30 seconds, accelerate to a moderate pace for 20 seconds, then sprint as hard as you can for 10 seconds. (It should be called 30-20-10 training, obviously, but that is not as catchy.) Repeat.

The enticements of this particular programme are many. It is easy to remember and low-tech, requiring no gym membership, heart rate monitor, or flow chart, as some complicated interval programmes seem to demand. You don’t even need a stopwatch to monitor the 30-, 20-, and 10-second time changes. You can, like me, count to yourself, which seems to make the intervals pass quickly.

Perhaps best of all, the grueling, all-out portion of the workout lasts for only 10 seconds, which is far more manageable for most of us than 30 seconds or 4 minutes. But of course the programme must be effective if scientists are to recommend it. So for a study published in December in The Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, Dr Bangsbo and his colleagues set out to test the routine with a large group of average exercisers.

Approaching running clubs throughout Denmark, the scientists found 132 mostly middle-aged, recreational runners who agreed to substitute 10-20-30 training for two of their usual weekly workouts. As a result, their weekly mileage fell by about half. The scientists also recruited 28 runners to serve as controls and continue their normal training.

All of the runners underwent physiological testing at the start of the study, including a simulated 5K race.

Then the scientists turned the runners loose to continue with or abandon their training as they chose. After eight weeks, almost all of the runners in the 10-20-30 group were still following the programme. And when they repeated their 5K runs, they had shaved an average of 38 seconds from their times. Most also had lower blood pressure and other markers of improved health.

There were no changes among the runners in the control group.

Of course, any regular interval training should improve someone’s athletic endurance and health if it replaces slower training, which is why serious athletes incorporate interval sessions into their regimens.

But in Dr Bangsbo’s study, the 10-20-30 program not only allowed the runners to train less while growing faster, it seemed to make the workouts pleasurable. “The running clubs in our study reported much improved social interactions between members” during the workouts, Dr Bangsbo said, because when the fastest runners turned around after each set of five 10-20-30 sprints, as most did, they found themselves following the slower runners, who had the satisfaction of being in the lead, at least for the moment.

You can undertake the programme solo, too, or, as I have, with dogs. They are likely to be enthusiasts. This is how they always have run. If you wish to try 10-20-30 training, Dr Bangsbo recommends starting by replacing one or two of your normal weekly workouts with a 10-20-30 session.

Warm up with an easy jog (or pedaling or rowing), then ease into the intervals. The 30-second portion should feel relaxed; the next 20

seconds moderately hard; and the final 10 seconds a full gallop. “The aim is to cover as much distance as possible in those 10 seconds,” Dr Bangsbo said.

Do five of the 10-20-30 intervals in a row without pause, then rest for two minutes by standing or very slowly walking about. Repeat the five consecutive intervals one more time, cool down, and you are done. The whole session, minus warm-up and cool-down, will have lasted 12 minutes.

If you are already in fine shape, Dr Bangsbo said, add another set of the five uninterrupted intervals.

Rest the next day, he said, or very lightly exercise; don’t do two of the intense interval sessions in a row. Although a smaller percentage of runners in the 10-20-30 group sustained injuries than did runners in the control group in his study, “we recommend very slow progress.”

—©2015 The New York Times

Autistic traits linked to creative problem-solving

Aug 25, 2015- People with autism may be more likely to think outside the box than people without the disorder, a British study suggests.

Researchers surveyed 312 people online, asking if they had autism and assessing whether they might have some traits of the disorder even if they hadn’t been formally diagnosed with it.

They tested participants’ creativity by seeking interpretations of images designed to be seen more than one way – such as a picture that might be viewed as either a rabbit or a duck. Then they gave participants one minute to name as many uses as possible for ordinary objects like a brick or a paper clip.

Compared to people without any indication of autism, the individuals who said they were diagnosed with autism and the participants without a diagnosis who exhibited many traits of the disorder generally offered fewer responses to these queries, but they also tended to have more unusual answers, the study found.

“We think that perhaps the people with autistic traits use more effortful methods to produce answers to divergent thinking tasks (not based on obvious word associations or common uses for similar items) and therefore come up with fewer but better responses,” said lead author Dr. Catherine Best of the University of Stirling in the U.K., in email to Reuters Health.

Around one percent of people may have autism spectrum disorder, a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication and behavioral challenges, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some people with autism may be exceptionally gifted in certain ways, but people with the disorder can also be severely challenged in some aspects of life.

To explore the link between autism and creativity, Best and colleagues examined survey responses for 75 participants who reported an autism diagnosis and 237 people with no autism diagnosis. Some of those undiagnosed people did, however, display autistic traits during the study.

And autistic traits, with or without a formal diagnosis, were linked to an ability to see more than one image in ambiguous figures, based on results of survey questions on pictures designed to look like two things at once.

The authors acknowledge in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders that because they lumped together people with diagnosed autism and people without a diagnosis who displayed many traits of the disorder, they can’t say for sure whether the people with a clinical diagnosis might have disproportionately influenced the results for this group.

“There is no black and white dividing line between mild autistic traits and having a label of autism, and geeks and nerds in Silicon Valley,” Temple Grandin, an autism activist and livestock researcher at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, said by email.

“Mild autism can provide some intellectual advantages and severe autism is a great handicap,” said Grandin, who wasn’t involved in the study. “If all the autism traits were removed, we would lose many creative minds in music, art, math and science.”

It’s possible that some people with autism may focus intensely on their own thoughts, to the exclusion of listening to others speaking to them, and this might lead autistic people to generate less conventional thoughts and expressions, said Nira Mashal, head of the brain and language lab at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Israel.

“The finding that people with high levels of autistic traits offer fewer responses to creative questions, but more original ideas does not surprise me,” Mashal, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by email.

Aug 27, 2015- People around the world are living longer, but many are also living sicker lives for longer, according to a study of all major diseases and injuries in 188 countries.

General health has improved worldwide, thanks to significant progress against infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria in the past decade and gains in fighting maternal and child illnesses.

But healthy life expectancy has not increased as much, so people are living more years with illness and disability, according to the analysis, published in The Lancet journal.

"The world has made great progress in health, but now the challenge is to invest in finding more effective ways of preventing or treating the major causes of illness and disability," said Theo Vos, a professor at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington who led the analysis.

The study's main findings were that global life expectancy at birth for both sexes rose by 6.2 years -- from 65.3 in 1990 to 71.5 in 2013. Healthy life expectancy at birth rose by 5.4 years -- from 56.9 in 1990 to 62.3 in 2013.

Healthy life expectancy takes into account both mortality and the impact of non-fatal conditions and chronic illnesses like heart and lung diseases, diabetes and serious injuries. Those detract from quality of life and impose heavy cost and resources burdens.

For most of the 188 countries studied, changes in healthy life expectancy between 1990 and 2013 were "significant and positive", the researchers said. But in many - among them Belize, Botswana and Syria - healthy life expectancy in 2013 was not much higher than in 1990.

And in some, including South Africa, Paraguay, and Belarus, healthy life expectancy has dropped. In Lesotho and Swaziland, people born in 2013 could expect to live some 10 fewer healthy years than people born there 20 years earlier.

The study also found stark differences between countries with the highest and lowest healthy life expectancies, and in the rates and direction of change.

Nicaraguans and Cambodians have seen dramatic increases since 1990, of 14.7 and 13.9 years respectively. People in Botswana and Belize, however, saw declines of two and 1.3 years respectively.

In 2013, Lesotho had the world's lowest healthy life expectancy, at 42 years. Japan had the highest, at 73.4 years.

Daily coffee may boost colon cancer survival

Patients who drink four cups of caffeinated coffee or more a day had half the rate of recurrence or death than non-coffee drinkers

Aug 27, 2015- Many studies have pointed to coffee’s health benefits, suggesting coffee may protect against Type 2 diabetes, reduce overall deaths and perhaps even help protect against dementia.
Colon cancer patients who were heavy coffee drinkers had a far lower risk of dying or having their cancer return than those who did not drink coffee, with significant benefits starting at two to three cups a day, a new study found. Patients who drank four cups of caffeinated coffee or more a day had half the rate of recurrence or death than non-coffee drinkers.

But, the researchers caution, cancer patients should not start ordering extra tall coffees. The study, the first to report such findings, does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship between coffee drinking and a lower risk of colon cancer recurrence. As other experts note, there may be differences between heavy coffee drinkers and abstainers that the research was not able to account for.

In recent years, many studies have pointed to coffee’s health benefits, suggesting coffee may protect against Type 2 diabetes, reduce overall deaths and perhaps even help protect against dementia. Other studies have suggested coffee may reduce the risks of certain cancers, including colon cancer. The benefits are generally attributed to coffee’s antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

But as with many studies about diet, proving a link between coffee consumption and protection against cancer recurrence is difficult.

“Think about it: People who drink a lot of coffee tend to be highly stress, highly pressured, intense and compulsive,” said Dr Alfred Neugut, a professor of cancer research, medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University and a director of New York-Presbyterian Hospital’s Cancer Prevention Center. “If they have cancer, they’re going to be more obsessive about following all the rules and doing all the things they’re supposed to do. So it may be that coffee itself is playing a physiological role, but it may also be a surrogate marker for you being a compulsive health-conscious good behaviour.”

Dr Charles S Fuchs, the director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who led the research, acknowledged the limitations of his study and called for interventional studies to replicate and confirm the findings.

“No one has ever done this before in colon cancer patients. It does require confirmation,” he said.
Patients should not start drinking coffee based on this study, but, “If you’re a coffee drinker and enjoy your coffee, stick with it,” he said.


“If a patient says, ‘Well I hate coffee,’ I’d say there are other things you can do, like avoid obesity, exercise regularly and follow a balanced diet.”

The study, published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology, followed 953 patients with Stage 3 colon cancer who had been treated with surgery and chemotherapy.

The patients, recruited from 1999 to 2001, were asked to fill out detailed dietary pattern questionnaires about food intake and lifestyle, first during chemotherapy and again six months later. The questionnaires asked about their intake of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee, herbal and nonherbal tea, caffeinated soft drinks and chocolate.

The researchers adjusted the findings to control for differences such as gender, age, smoking, diet, caloric intake, consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and alcohol, weight and physical activity. They did not, however, adjust for use of aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, even though their earlier work suggests such drugs may be protective against colon cancer recurrence. Dr Fuchs said their previous research had not shown any association between coffee drinking and aspirin use.

They determined that patients who had reported drinking four or more cups of affeinated coffee a day were 52 percent less likely to have had a recurrence of cancer or to have died than those who had never drank coffee, while those who drank two to three cups of caffeinated coffee a day were 31 percent less likely than nondrinkers to have had a recurrence or to have died. Sweetened coffee beverages did not count.

The researchers’ hypothesis is that the factors that increase risk for Type 2 diabetes, such as obesity, a sedentary lifestyle and high insulin levels, also drive colon cancer, Dr Fuchs said. And many studies have shown that coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk for Type 2 diabetes, a chronic illness that may increase the risk of colon cancer. “We believe that activating the energy pathways that contribute to heart disease and diabetes is also relevant for the proliferation of cancer cells,” Dr Fuchs said, while also stressing that more research was needed.

The analysis determined the lowered risk associated with coffee was entirely because of the caffeine. One hypothesis is that caffeine increases the body’s sensitivity to insulin, so it requires less of the hormone. That, inturn, may reduce inflammation, which is a risk factor for diabetes and cancer. While there are inevitably gaps in these kinds of studies, the new research is “one piece of a big puzzle,” said Dr Len Lichtenfeld, the deputy chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, adding that there is tremendous concern about the role obesity and metabolic factors may play in promoting cancer.

“This is an example of trying to look at those types of questions—about what the metabolic relationships are, and what might influence those metabolic relationships—in a positive way.”

Take your BP pills on time

Aug 27, 2015- Patients who frequently fail to take prescribed blood pressure-lowering medications may be more likely to wind up hospitalised for heart failure than people who only miss pills occasionally, a study suggests. While plenty of previous experiments have proven that daily medications to treat hypertension, or high blood pressure, can help minimise the risk of heart failure, less is known about real-world outcomes for people who don’t always take their pills, the researchers note in the journal Hypertension.

For the current study, researchers followed almost 4,000 patients prescribed anti-hypertension pills in Italy in 2005. Patients were monitored for an average of six and a half years, unless they experienced heart failure, died or moved away before the end of the study period. Compared with people who rarely took their prescribed daily drugs, patients who used the pills 26 percent to 50 percent of the time were 17 percent less likely to be hospitalised for heart failure. The risk was 34 percent lower for individuals who took their medicine at least 75 percent of the time.

“As treating hypertension reduces the risk of heart failure, it is logical to hypothesise that not taking prescribed drugs would be associated with an increase in the risk of heart failure,” said Dr Veronique Roger, a cardiovascular disease researcher. “It is important to demonstrate it with ‘real life’ clinical practice studies such as this one,” added Roger, who wasn’t involved in the study. “These findings will help convey an important message to patients about the importance of taking treatment as prescribed to control hypertension.”

About one in three adults have high blood pressure, a condition that contributes to more than nine million deaths each year, according to the World Health Organization. People often don’t know they have high blood pressure because they don’t have symptoms. Even after they’re diagnosed, they sometimes skip their medications because missing a dose doesn’t make them feel sick.

In the current study, patients were typically around 67 years old, and 54 percent were male. Overall, 622 people were hospitalised for heart failure. The researchers compared them to a randomly selected group of 3,110 similar individuals who weren’t hospitalised for the condition. People hospitalised for heart failure generally took a wider variety of anti-hypertension drugs, were more apt to have other medical problems such as diabetes, and were more likely to get treatment from multiple physicians.

Overall, compliance with prescribed medicines wasn’t great for either group. Among the people who avoided heart failure during the study, only one-third took their prescribed drugs at least 75 percent of the time.

Among the heart failure patients, just one-quarter took their drugs this often. The worst offenders in terms of skipping medication–people who took their drugs no more than 25 percent of the time–accounted for 46 percent of heart failure patients and 41 percent of people who didn’t get hospitalised for the condition.There are many reasons patients don’t take their blood pressure medication, noted Dr Marie Teresa Brown, a researcher at Rush Medical College.

Congenital heart disease is one of the most common types of birth defects, affecting up to nine in every 1,000 babies

Aug 27, 2015- Women who eat healthily before and during pregnancy may cut the risk of their baby developing a heart problem, researchers believe. The link is suggested by a study of 19,000 women in the US who were asked about their diet in the year leading up to pregnancy.

A healthy diet was one with plenty of fresh fish, fruit, nuts and vegetables.

Pregnant women and women trying to conceive are already advised to take certain supplements. Experts recommend folic acid to reduce the risk of other birth defects like spina bifida, and vitamin D for healthy bones and teeth.

In England, the government’s Healthy Start scheme provides vouchers for pregnant women that can be used to buy milk and vegetables.

In the study, published in Archives of Diseases in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition, half of the women had babies with heart problems while the other half did not. When the researchers compared the diets of these two groups they found a healthier maternal diet was associated with a lower chance of congenital heart defects.

Pregnant women in the top 25 percent (quartile) of diet quality, had a lower risk of having a baby with certain heart defects—atrial septal defects and Tetralogy of Fallot—than those in the bottom 25 percent, even after accounting for other factors such as whether the mother took folic acid or was a smoker. Congenital heart disease is one of the most common types of birth defect, affecting up to nine in every 1,000 babies born in the UK. Mild defects, such as holes in the heart, often don’t need to be treated, as they may improve on their own and may not cause any further problems. But others can be more serious and some, lethal.

In most cases, something has gone wrong in the early development of the foetus. Some heart conditions are due to faulty genes or chromosomes. But often it is unclear why the baby’s heart has not developed normally, says the British Heart Foundation (BHF).

Victoria Taylor, senior dietitian at the BHF, said: “This is an interesting study which highlights the importance of diet right from the start of life.

“A healthy diet before, during and after pregnancy can have benefits for both mother and child and, as seen here, the whole diet should be taken into consideration, rather than solely focusing on individual nutrients.

“Eating well isn’t a guaranteed way to avoid congenital heart defects, but this will be another factor that will motivate women planning a pregnancy to make healthy choices.” BBC

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com

www.nepaltravelbook.com