Recruits’ perception of factors influencing dietary intake during basic military training: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: During basic military training (BMT), recruits often have elevated energy requirements because of intense training and can have difficulties meeting their nutritional needs, potentially resulting in decreased performance and increased risk of injury. This study documents recruits’ perceptions of individual, dietary, and environmental factors that influenced their food intake during BMT. Methods: This qualitative phenomenological study included semi-structured individual interviews with Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) recruits who recently completed BMT. Virtual interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using a thematic content analysis approach. Results: Between September 2022 and March 2023, 16 recently graduated recruits participated in the study. Six main themes emerged related to the individual (physical activity level, hunger level, mood and morale), the environment (food environment, social influences), and the diet (food characteristics), with multiple theme interactions. No sex or gender differences were identified. Aspects of the food environment, including short meal duration and reduced food availability and accessibility, limited recruits’ ability to eat sufficiently to compensate for their increased physical activity and contributed to increased hunger levels. Food characteristics were adequate for some, but others would have preferred more variety and better-quality food. Social influences, mood and morale, food environment, and food characteristics were reported as facilitators of or barriers to recruits’ dietary intake. Discussion: Several individual, environmental, and dietary factors were found to influence recruits’ dietary intake during BMT. These data provide some insights on potential avenues for improving recruits’ dietary intake; however, more research is needed to develop evidence-based strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".