4.6 Article

Predictors of Dietary Supplement Use by US Coast Guard Personnel

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. United States Army Medical Research and Material Command (USAMRMC)
  2. Department of Defense Center Alliance for Dietary Supplement Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Personnel in Armed Forces entities such as the US Coast Guard (USCG) engage in strenuous tasks requiring high levels of physiological and psychological fitness. Previous reports have found increased prevalence of dietary supplement (DS) use by military personnel to meet the demands of their occupation. Objective This study assessed DS prevalence and patterns of use in USCG personnel and compared these findings to reports from other Armed Forces personnel. Design Use of DS by USCG personnel (n = 1059) was assessed by survey at USCG installations. Data were weighted by age, sex, and rank to be representative of total USCG demographics. Results Seventy percent of USCG personnel reported using a DS at least 1 time/wk. Thirty-three percent used 1-2 DS >= 1 time/wk, 18% 3-4 DS >= 1 time/wk, and almost 19% >= 5 DS >= 1 time/wk. Average expenditure on DSs by UCSG personnel was $40/mo. More than 47% of USCG personnel used a multivitamin and mineral, 33% consumed protein supplements, 22% used individual vitamins and minerals, 23% reported taking combination products, and 9% consumed herbal supplements. Increased use of DS use was associated with high intensity operational occupations, participating in high volumes of aerobic exercise and strength training. Use of DS was not associated with age, education or body mass index. Conclusion Occupation is an important determinate of DS use. Prevalence of DS use by USCG personnel is greater than reported for other Armed Forces personnel and reflects high levels of participation in aerobic and strength training activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available