## 3 Results and Discussion
Despite the fact that the \"Milk, yoghurts\" group also differs from most other product groups, its statistically significant differences from meat products (bacon, \(p=0.91\)) and from flour dishes, pasta (\(p=0.002\), which is two times higher than the significance level \(p=0.0011\) when applying the Bonferroni correction to the values of this test) were not found. However, the \"Milk, yoghurts\" product group shows statistically significant differences from all other samples (\(p<0.001\)). Figure 3 shows a histogram of the distribution of the calculated average ARP values for all the studied product groups. The average value for the entire data set was \(\approx\)25.3 equivalents. These data confirm the need for evaluation and research of the daily antiradical capacity of food. Currently, there are standards for daily human needs for food components (for example, Codex Alimentarius, recommendations of national academies of medical sciences, etc.). Taking into account the data presented in them, it seems possible to estimate this capacity by conducting preliminary studies on the structure of foodstuffs preferentially consumed by the population. However, knowing that according to the FNDDS database, the average moisture content of products for the studied groups is \(\approx\)67%, it is possible to calculate the average capacity of a 100 g portion of a randomly consumed product from the above list of food groups. This capacity, based on a dry weight of 33.1 g, is 837.43 equivalents (761-914 equivalents within the 95% CI). No less important in this case will be the method of processing (cooking) food, which is taken into account to a certain extent when compiling diets for the treatment of a number of pathological conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Product Groups**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Statistical Parameters 1**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **Mean** & **St. Error** & **St. Dev** & **95\% CI** \\ \hline
1 & Apples, processed products & 118.16 & 28.79 & 70.52 & 61.73–174.59 \\
2 & Vegetables, cabbage & 51.64 & 1.92 & 36.13 & 47.88–55.39 \\
3 & Legumes and cereals & 41.63 & 2.15 & 35.26 & 37.40–45.85 \\
4 & Cheeses and sandwiches & 16.36 & 1.09 & 15.97 & 14.22–18.50 \\
5 & Eggs and omelets & 14.57 & 0.63 & 13.36 & 13.33–15.82 \\
6 & Fish, processed products & 16.10 & 0.60 & 15.61 & 14.93–17.27 \\
7 & Milk, yogurts & 31.26 & 1.92 & 24.73 & 27.50–35.03 \\
8 & Pasta, noodles and flour dishes & 25.94 & 2.72 & 19.21 & 20.61–31.26 \\
9 & Pork, bacon & 21.57 & 1.20 & 16.69 & 19.21–23.93 \\
10 & Marine invertebrates & 13.87 & 1.14 & 15.65 & 11.63–16.11 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} 1  
\end{table} 
Table 4: ARP values calculated by the ANN for products and raw materials from different commodity groups. Evaluation of antiradical daily capacity requires additional research. However, taking the standards of human daily needs for food components [3], we recalculated these values and brought them to the same form as the data in the FNDDS table. The results of the ANN prediction for these data are shown in Table 5.  
ARP values predicted according to the data of the Academy of Sciences of Russia and the USA do not differ from each other within the 95% confidence interval. A slight decrease in the values in the first case (ceteris paribus) is apparently a consequence of the presence of polyunsaturated fatty acids in the recommendations of the Federal Research Center for Nutrition and Biotechnology. Here, we are faced with one of the contradictions: An increase in the proportion of fatty acids in food according to the ANN is inversely related to ARP values, which reduces the shelf life and stability of food systems. However, polyunsaturated fatty acids improve the nutritional properties of food. In this contradiction, in our opinion, two mutually exclusive  
Figure 3: Summary histogram of ARP values distributions predicted by ANN (equivalents per gram of dry weight of products).