## 3 Results
### Yield, Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), and Sensory Quality
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Attribute** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**LL**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SM**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{_p_**Value**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **SV** & **SVGrill** & **SVMar** & **SV** & **SVGrill** & **SVMar** & **M** & **T** & **M** \(\times\) **T** \\ \hline Yield (\%) & 78.7 a (0.7) & 76.2 a (1.2) & 75.6 a (1.1) & 70.7 b (0.3) & 65.1 c (0.6) & 69.5 b (0.4) & *** & *** & * \\ WBSF (N) & 20.5 cd (0.6) & 19.1 d (0.5) & 15.0 e (0.4) & 28.4 a (0.7) & 23.2 b (0.8) & 22.4 b (0.6) & *** & *** & * \\ Tenderness (points) & 7.3 b (0.2) & 7.3 b (0.2) & 7.7 ab (0.1) & 7.3 b (0.2) & 6.5 c (0.2) & 8.3 a (0.2) & NS & **+** & * \\ Juiciness (points) & 7.5 a (0.2) & 6.9 a (0.2) & 7.2 a (0.2) & 6.7 a (0.3) & 5.2 b (0.3) & 6.6 a (0.2) & * & * & NS \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} a–d Values in rows with different upper case letters differ at \(p\) < 0.05. *** Difference significant at \(p\) < 0.001. ** Difference significant at \(p\) < 0.01. * Difference significant at \(p\) < 0.05. * NS = no significant difference. Sensory assessment on 1–10 scale, juiciness from 1 (extremely dry) to 10 (extremely jucy), and tenderness from 1 (extremely tough) to 10 (extremely tender).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Effects of muscle (LL: _longissimus lumborum_; SM: _semimembranosus_) and treatment (SV = sous vide, SVGrill = sous vide and subsequent grilling, and SVMar = marinating and sous vide) on yield, Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF), and sensory-assessed juiciness and tenderness (mean values and standard error of the mean in brackets). The values of WBSF were also affected by the muscle type (\(p<0.001\)) and treatment (\(p<0.001\)), as well as the interaction between these factors (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 3). The WBSF values were generally lower in the LL than the SM. When the SV treatment was preceded by marinating, the WBSF values were reduced in both muscles in comparison with the SV treatment alone. Grilling also decreased the WBSF values in the SM compared with the SV samples, and no differences were observed between the SM subjected to SVGrill and SVMar. In contrast, for the LL muscle, it was marinating which produced the lowest WBSF. In the SM processed by SVMar, the WBSF values were similar to those noted for the SV-treated LL. The results of the instrumental tenderness analysis were partially confirmed in the sensory evaluation. The tenderness was not affected by muscle type (\(p>0.05\)), but this attribute was affected by the treatment (\(p<0.01\)) and the interaction between the treatment and muscle type (\(p<0.05\)). Although the LL muscles subjected to different treatments did not differ in terms of tenderness, significant differences were noted in the SM. The lower tenderness scores were noted in the SM SVGrill samples, whereas SM muscles subjected to marinating and SV (SVMar) received higher tenderness scores than SM processed by SV and SVGrill. Moreover, the SM SVMar was similar to LL SVMar in terms of tenderness. No differences were observed between the tenderness of the SV-treated SM samples and the LL samples subjected to SV, SVGrill, and SVMar. The samples received similar scores in the evaluation of juiciness, excluding the SVGrill-treated SM samples, which received lower scores (Table 3). The results of the aroma and taste assessments for the LL and SM muscles  
Figure 1: Sous vide (SV) and grilling (Grill) losses (%) in samples of _seminembranosus_ and _longissimus lumborum_ muscles subjected to sous vide and grilling (SVGrill) treatment. Vertical bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a and b represent values with different letters differing at \(p<0.001\). Figure 2: Marinating (Mar) and sous vide (SV) losses (%) in samples of _seminembranosus_ and _longissimus lumborum_ muscles subjected to marinating and sous vide (SVMar) treatment. Vertical bars indicate standard error of the mean, and a and b represent values with different letters differing at \(p<0.001\).