Optimal dietary intake is important for the health and physical performance of military personnel. For military veterans, the complex nature of transition into civilian life and sub-optimal dietary intake is a leading contributor to the increased burden of disease. A scoping review was undertaken to determine what is known about the assessment and reporting of dietary intakes within both military and veteran populations. In addition, this review determines if studies reporting on the dietary intake of military personnel or veterans include comparisons with dietary guidelines. Six databases were searched to identify papers published from the database inception to April 2019. Observational and intervention studies were searched to identify if they assessed and reported whole dietary intake data, reported data exclusively for a military or veteran population, and included only healthy populations. A total of 89 studies were included. The majority of studies used one dietary assessment method (n = 76, 85%) with fewer using multiple methods (n = 13, 15%). The most frequent methodology used was food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) (n = 40, 45%) followed by 24-hour recalls (n = 8, 9%) and food records (n = 8, 9%). The main dietary outcomes reported were macronutrients: carbohydrate, protein, fat, and alcohol (n = 66, 74%) with total energy intake reported in n = 59 (66%). Fifty four (61%) studies reported a comparison with country-specific dietary guidelines and 14 (16%) reported a comparison with the country-specific military guidelines. In conclusion, dietary intake in military settings is most commonly assessed via FFQs and 24-hour recalls. Dietary intake reporting is mainly focused around intakes of energy and macronutrients. Most studies compare against dietary guidelines, however, comparison to specific military dietary guidelines is minimal.

Addictive eating prevalence is estimated at 15–20% in studied populations, and is associated with concurrent mental health conditions and eating disorders as well as overweight and obesity. However, few evidence-based interventions targeting addictive eating are available. The further development of evidence-based interventions requires assessment of intervention feasibility and efficacy. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, including intervention delivery and program acceptability, of FoodFix; a personality targeted intervention for the treatment of addictive eating behaviours in Australian adults. Participants (n = 52) were randomised to intervention (n = 26) or wait-list control groups (n = 26) and received three personalised telehealth sessions with an Accredited Practising Dietitian over seven weeks. Intervention delivery was assessed by tracking adherence to scheduled timing of intervention sessions. Program acceptability of participants was assessed via an online process evaluation survey and program acceptability of intervention providers was assessed via semi-structured phone interviews. In total, 79% of participants adhered to scheduled timing for session two and 43% for session three, defined as within one week (before/after) of the scheduled date. Further, 21% of participants completed the process evaluation survey (n = 11). The majority of participants were extremely/very satisfied with FoodFix (n = 7, 63%). Intervention providers (n = 2) expressed that they felt adequately trained to deliver the intervention, and that the overall session format, timing, and content of FoodFix was appropriate for participants. These findings highlight the importance of assessing intervention feasibility to further understand intervention efficacy.