Background Dietary supplement (DS) use by active duty service members has been extensively studied, with over 70% reporting use largely for purported effects on physical performance, weight management, and health. However, prevalence of DS use among civilian incoming military trainees, prior to basic combat training, has not been extensively examined. Objective To compare the prevalence of DS use of incoming U.S. Army trainees with a cohort of active duty soldiers. Methods Using a similar questionnaire, U.S. Army male infantry soldiers (n=451, mean time in service 9.2 years) reported DS use and 112 incoming male infantry trainees reported use before starting basic combat training. Responses were classified into nine pre-defined DS categories and were based on how many DSs a participant reported taking over a period of one week. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used to compare frequencies of DS use between groups and across DS categories. The total number of categories from which participants reported using DSs was also calculated. Results Prevalence of DS use among soldiers was 81% versus 59% for trainees ( p <.001). The most frequently used DSs among soldiers were protein (58%), pre/post workout (48%), multivitamin/mineral (MVM; 48%), weight/fat loss (37%), and individual vitamin/mineral (IVM; 34%) products. The most frequently used DSs among trainees were protein (45%), pre/post workout (28%), MVM (24%), IVM (23%), and muscle-building (21%) products. Trainees used less DSs across all categories (all p 's<.05) and consumed DSs from fewer categories than soldiers (median: 1.0 vs. 2.0 categories, p <.001). Conclusions DS use was higher in soldiers than incoming U.S. Army trainees overall and across all categories of DSs. These cross-sectional findings indicate DS use may change between the start of Army training and active duty service. Longitudinal analyses should be conducted to assess changes in DS use over time. Clinical Trial Registration Not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Canino et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: