BackgroundReduced calorie, low fat diet is currently recommended diet for overweight and obese adults. Prior data suggest that low carbohydrate diets may also be a viable option for those who are overweight and obese.PurposeCompare the effects of low carbohydrate versus low fats diet on weight and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in overweight and obese patients.Data SourcesSystematic literature review via PubMed (1966–2014).Study SelectionRandomized controlled trials with ≥8 weeks follow up, comparing low carbohydrate (≤120gm carbohydrates/day) and low fat diet (≤30% energy from fat/day).Data ExtractionData were extracted and prepared for analysis using double data entry. Prior to identification of candidate publications, the outcomes of change in weight and metabolic factors were selected as defined by Cochrane Collaboration. Assessment of the effects of diets on predicted risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was added during the data collection phase.Data Synthesis1797 patients were included from 17 trials with <1 year follow up in 12. Compared with low fat diet, low carbohydrate was associated with significantly greater reduction in weight (Δ = -2.0 kg, 95% CI: -3.1, -0.9) and significantly lower predicted risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events (p<0.03). Frequentist and Bayesian results were concordant. The probability of greater weight loss associated with low carbohydrate was >99% while the reduction in predicted risk favoring low carbohydrate was >98%.LimitationsLack of patient-level data and heterogeneity in dropout rates and outcomes reported.ConclusionsThis trial-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LoCHO diets with LoFAT diets in strictly adherent populations demonstrates that each diet was associated with significant weight loss and reduction in predicted risk of ASCVD events. However, LoCHO diet was associated with modest but significantly greater improvements in weight loss and predicted ASCVD risk in studies from 8 weeks to 24 months in duration. These results suggest that future evaluations of dietary guidelines should consider low carbohydrate diets as effective and safe intervention for weight management in the overweight and obese, although long-term effects require further investigation.

Effective mitigation for N 2 O emissions, now the third most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas and the largest remaining anthropogenic source of stratospheric ozone depleting substances, requires understanding of the sources and how they may increase this century. Here we update estimates and their uncertainties for current anthropogenic and natural N 2 O emissions and for emissions scenarios to 2050. Although major uncertainties remain, 'bottom-up' inventories and 'top-down' atmospheric modeling yield estimates that are in broad agreement. Global natural N 2 O emissions are most likely between 10 and 12 Tg N 2 O-N yr −1 . Net anthropogenic N 2 O emissions are now about 5.3 Tg N 2 O-N yr −1 . Gross anthropogenic emissions by sector are 66% from agriculture, 15% from energy and transport sectors, 11% from biomass burning, and 8% from other sources. A decrease in natural emissions from tropical soils due to deforestation reduces gross anthropogenic emissions by about 14%. Business-as-usual emission scenarios project almost a doubling of anthropogenic N 2 O emissions by 2050. In contrast, concerted mitigation scenarios project an average decline of 22% relative to 2005, which would lead to a near stabilization of atmospheric concentration of N 2 O at about 350 ppb. The impact of growing demand for biofuels on future projections of N 2 O emissions is highly uncertain; N 2 O emissions from second and third generation biofuels could remain trivial or could become the most significant source to date. It will not be possible to completely eliminate anthropogenic N 2 O emissions from agriculture, but better matching of crop N needs and N supply offers significant opportunities for emission reductions.

2016-11-03T14:11:40

Agriculture in the United States (US) cycles large quantities of nitrogen (N) to produce food, fuel, and fiber and is a major source of excess reactive nitrogen (Nr) in the environment. Nitrogen lost from cropping systems and animal operations moves to waterways, groundwater, and the atmosphere. Changes in climate and climate variability may further affect the ability of agricultural systems to conserve N. The N that escapes affects climate directly through the emissions of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and indirectly through the loss of nitrate (NO 3 -), nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and ammonia to downstream and downwind ecosystems that then emit some of the N received as N 2 O and NO x . Emissions of NO x lead to the formation of tropospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas that can also harm crops directly. There are many opportunities to mitigate the impact of agricultural N on climate and the impact of climate on agricultural N. Some are available today; many need further research; and all await effective incentives to become adopted. Research needs can be grouped into four major categories: (1) an improved understanding of agricultural N cycle responses to changing climate; (2) a systems-level understanding of important crop and animal systems sufficient to identify key interactions and feedbacks; (3) the further development and testing of quantitative models capable of predicting N-climate interactions with confidence across a wide variety of crop-soil-climate combinations; and (4) socioecological research to better understand the incentives necessary to achieve meaningful deployment of realistic solutions.

Nitrogen pollution is an important environmental issue gaining traction in policy circles. However, there is little understanding of current nitrogen policies around the world: whether they account for nitrogen's unique ability to exacerbate multiple environmental impacts or balance nitrogen's role as an essential agricultural input and major pollutant. Here we assemble and analyze the first database of nitrogen policies generated by national and regional legislatures and government agencies, a collection of 2726 policies across 186 countries derived from the ECOLEX database.The database covers all major environmental sinks (such as air, water and climate), economic sectors (including agriculture, wastewater and industry), and policy instruments (from market mechanisms to regulatory standards). We find that sink-centered policies are predominantly focused on water, mirroring the distribution of nitrogen's global environmental and human health costs. However, policy integration across sinks is severely lacking, which heightens the risk of substituting one form of nitrogen pollution for another. Moreover, two thirds of agricultural policies (ranging from broad sectoral programs to nitrogen-specific measures) incentivize nitrogen use or manage its commerce, demonstrating the primacy of food production over environmental concerns.

No abstract

Nitrogen is a crucial input to food production and yet its oversupply in many parts of the world contributes to a number of environmental problems. Most policies dedicated to reducing agricultural nitrogen pollution focus on changing farmer behaviour. However, farm-level policies are challenging to implement and farmers are just one of several actors in the agri-food chain. The activities of other actors -from fertilizer manufacturers to wastewater treatment companies -can also impact nitrogen losses at the farm level and beyond. Consequently, policymakers have a broader range of policy options than traditionally thought to address nitrogen pollution from field to fork. Inspired by the concept of full-chain nitrogen use efficiency, this Perspective introduces the major actors common in agri-food chains from a nitrogen standpoint, identifies nitrogen policies that could be targeted towards them and proposes several new criteria to guide ex-ante analysis of the feasibility and design of different policy interventions. Sustainably feeding ten billion people by 2050 will require fundamental changes in the global food system -a broad portfolio of policy options and a framework for how to select them is essential.

No abstract