» » » 5 Best positions to get pregnant fast Getting pregnant maybe the easiest of all things, however, some couples do find it hard to conceive for several reasons, including weak or insufficient sperm count. In some cases, as when nature needs a boost, a little push from you and your partner can go a long way in getting pregnant. When it comes to the best position to get pregnant, the general rule is that the male sperm must be deposited as near to the female cervix as possible. This has something to do with the life spans of the female egg and the male sperm. Once an egg is released from the ovary - a stage also known as ovulation - it begins its path down the fallopian tube to the uterus. A released egg typically survives for only 24 hours, while a sperm can last anywhere from three to five days in the female body. As such, the egg has to be as close to the egg as possible so they can meet and join before the egg dies. While not a lot of people will agree that the sexual positions have anything to do with getting pregnant, the logical inference is that it makes sense to assume the position that can help the sperm meet the egg in the shortest possible time.

This is especially true when for couples who have problems or difficulty conceiving. Having said this, the first "best position to get pregnant" tip is to avoid positions that least expose the cervix to the male sperm, and that generally defy gravity such as sex while standing up, sitting down, or with the woman on top. When trying to conceive, it is best to limit the amount of sperm that flows back out of the vagina. The woman's hips should also be positioned in such a way that the sperm released is kept inside, giving it enough time to swim up to the female cervix. Consider the following positions instead: 1. The missionary position. Or man-on-top is said to be the position that's best for getting pregnant. This is because this particular position allows for the deepest possible penetration, making it possible for the sperm to get deposited closest to the cervix. 2. Raise the hips. Elevating the hips, which can be done by placing a pillow behind her, can also be helpful because this exposes the female cervix to as much semen as the male can release.

The rear-entry position where the man enters the woman from behind is also a recommended position. In this position, sperm is also deposited closest to the cervix, thereby helping increase the chances of conception.You can also try having intercourse while lying side by side. This position likewise causes the most exposure of the cervix to the male sperm.Finally, while this has nothing to do with sexual positions, there are also researches that suggest the importance of the female orgasm in conceiving. chandelier klubb malmöAccording to studies, female orgasm leads to contractions that could push sperm up into the cervix. capiz shell chandelier laura ashleyThe lesson: have fun while trying to conceive.chandelier malta gay

How to get pregnant Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.Alanis Morissette – London Lyrics London lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group, THE BICYCLE MUSIC COMPANYWomen with no sign of HPV infection are at low risk “Cervical cancer: gap between screenings ‘can be increased to 10 years’,” The Guardian reports. A Dutch study suggests women who test negative for the human papilloma virus (HPV), the leading cause of , can be safely screened once every 10 years. Countries including the UK are currently in the process of implementing HPV testing as part of . The study found the long-term incidence of cervical cancer and abnormal cells was low in women who screened negative for HPV. Researchers followed more than 40,000 women for around 14 years to assess whether HPV-based cervical screening programmes are successful enough to extend cervical screening intervals. The research team believe their findings mean the interval between cervical screening tests can be increased to more than five years for women over 40 who have screened negative for HPV.

At the moment, cervical screening is offered to women aged 25 to 64 in England. This is every three years for women aged 25 to 49 and every five years for women aged 50 to 64. Testing for HPV is already part of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. The National Screening Committee is currently considering how often a woman should be offered a test for HPV. Cervical screening can identify abnormal cells so they can be treated before cancer develops. As we , hundreds of deaths would be prevented each year if all women in the UK attended their screening appointments. The study was carried out by researchers from VU University Medical Centre in Amsterdam and Erasmus MC in Rotterdam. It was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and the European Commission. The study was published in the  British Medical Journal (BMJ). The media presented the main findings of the study accurately. Many sources carried a quote from Dr Anne Mackie from , who said: “The UK National Screening Committee is currently carrying out a review to identify how often a woman should be tested for HPV.

A consultation on the review findings will begin next year.” You could criticise the Daily Mail’s attitude towards these crucial tests in its introductory line: “Women could soon be spared the ordeal of having to go so often for smear tests”. While a smear test can be a bit uncomfortable for some women, it is also vitally important. This research presented long-term follow-up results of the POBASCAM trial, a population-based  of HPV testing for cervical screening. This trial aimed to assess the risk of extending screening intervals to more than five years for a combined HPV and cytology-based cervical screening programme. This is the best way of assessing risk like this, as the population was randomly assigned to groups and the findings seen are therefore less likely to be down to chance. Women from the Netherlands aged 29 to 61 years old were invited to participate in the cervical screening programme between January 1999 and September 2002. Half of the participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group, who had an HPV test as well as the usual cytology screen from a cervical smear.

The other half made up the control group, who were assigned to cytology and an HPV test, but the HPV test result was only made available to the researchers, not the woman or her doctor. At the second round of screening after five years, both groups of women had HPV and cytology tests. Their management was based on both results, as per the initial intervention group protocol. At the third round of screening at 10 years, all women just had management based on the cytology result. The women were followed up for 14 years. A total of 43,339 women were included in the study, and had an average age of 42.8 years. The HPV test reduced the incidence of cancer. The researchers found the incidence of cervical cancer in HPV-negative women from the intervention group after three rounds of screening was similar to the incidence in women with normal cytology in the control group after two rounds of screening at 0.09%. After three rounds of screening, the incidence for these women from the control group had risen to 0.19%.

For women with normal cytology and a positive HPV test, the risk of cancer was 71% lower in the intervention group, though the wide confidence interval reduces reliability in this result (rate ratio 0.29, 95%  0.10 to 0.87). The incidence of CIN3+, where abnormal cells affect the full thickness of the lining covering the cervix, was also lower in the intervention group. For HPV-negative women in the intervention group, the incidence was 0.56% after the third round of screening, compared with 1.2% for women with normal cytology from the control group. The team believe HPV-based screening provides significantly better protection than abnormal cells cytology-based screening. They also feel that, compared with primary HPV testing, the value of primary HPV and cytology co-testing is limited. The team believe HPV-based screening provides significantly better protection than cytology-based screening. They concluded that, “Long-term incidences of cervical cancer and CIN3+ were low among HPV-negative women in this study cohort, and supports an extension of the cervical screening interval beyond five years for women aged 40 years and older.”

This long-term follow-up of women involved in the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial aimed to assess the risk of extending screening intervals to more than five years for HPV-based cervical screening programmes. The study found that in women who were HPV negative, the long-term incidence of cervical cancer and abnormal cells was low. The research team believes these findings mean the interval between cervical screening tests can be increased to more than five years for women over the age of 40. This study was well designed, and included a large number of women with similar dropout rates between study arms. But the study has a number of limitations, which the research team is aware of:Women are invited to attend by letter from their GP. Testing for HPV has already been incorporated into the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. A further UK-based pilot study would be required if the length of time between screening for certain low-risk women was to be extended in the UK.