## 3 Results and Discussion
### Combined-Treated Samples  
The overall results of the measurements of the combined-treated samples are shown in Table 4, while Table 5 focuses on whether the treatment order, the pressure level, or the interaction of the two factors has a significant impact on the measured attributes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pressure**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 21/2 \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 21/8 \({}^{\circ}\)C**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Order**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pressure**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 21/2 \({}^{\circ}\)C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 21/8 \({}^{\circ}\)C**} \\ \hline Moisture (\%) & SV + HHP & 300 Mpa & 66.09 & \(\pm\) & 2.06 & 69.15 & \(\pm\) & 0.23 & 70  
The pH value of the combined-treated samples showed a slight difference (0.09 and 0.04 units at 300 MPa and 600 MPa, respectively) between the treatment orders on day 0. For the samples stored at 2 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the pH value was stable in all cases, but a modest decrease (still not significant) was observed during the storage period at 8 \({}^{\circ}\)C. This phenomenon could be a result of the accumulation of lactic acid at this elevated temperature. Both treatment order and pressure level had strong effects (\(p<0.001\)) on weight loss (Table 5). As expected, a higher pressure level resulted in higher weight loss, as 600 MPa pressure treatment causes irreversible protein denaturation and cell membrane damage, which may facilitate this mechanism In addition, the interaction of these two factors also had a significant (\(p<0.001\)) effect. The pressure after the heat treatment order led to higher weight loss values. As for the first impact, the HHP modified the cell membranes, followed by the heat treatment that could have more impact on the meat tissues with injured membranes and modified protein structure. This was also more visible in the higher-pressure (600 MPa) samples. These weight loss values maintained near constant levels during the storage period, at both temperatures. Although the treatment order and pressure level significantly affected weight loss, they did not have a significant effect on the moisture content of sous-vide and HHP-treated pork samples. The order of treatments: a borderline result of a significant difference of 95% was found with a \(p\) value of 0.085. Color measurement: Lightness (L*) values of the combined-treated samples showed differences, though not significant when switching the order of treatments. Samples that had undergone pressurization followed by heat treatment had a somewhat lighter color than the samples treated in the reverse order (a 5-6 unit L* gap). There was no sign of an important L* value change during the storage period or due to the applied pressure level. The order of the treatments as well as the pressure level had a strong significant effect on the redness (a*) values (\(p<0.001\) in both cases). The heat + pressure treatment caused a more intense redness. The SV + HHP-treated meat samples showed no considerable change during storage. The HHP + SV-treated samples recovered their redness during the 21-day storage, which was more visible at the higher (8 \({}^{\circ}\)C) storage temperature. It seems to us that the first impact on the sample also determines the consequences for the a* values. Contrary to the a* values, the observed yellowness (b*) data showed a modest shift towards a yellowish color cast during the 21-day storage period. Both pressure-treated samples remained stable without noticeable differences. The pressure level had a strong significant effect on the b* values at \(p<0.001\), while the treatment order had a significant --though to a lesser extent--effect on the samples at \(p<0.05\).