## 3 Results and Discussion
### Baking Test Results
#### 3.3.2 Assessment of Nutritional Value and Health-Promoting Properties of Bread
The interaction of the quantity and type of SBP additive was statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)) for the carbohydrate and sugar content (Table 5). The data on the energy value (EV) of the tested bread samples are presented in Table 5. The EV of the SBP-fortified bread samples ranged from an average of 196 kcal/100 g (for the 10% SBP samples) to 214 kcal/100 g (for the control sample; 0% SBP). It was found that the type of sugar beet pulp added to the bread did not significantly affect the energy value, but the supplementation level did (Table 5). The EV of all tested bread samples consisted of energy coming mainly from carbohydrates (approx. 80% of energy) and, to a lesser extent, protein (above 14%). Due to the fact that more than 12% of the EV came from protein, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Quality Characteristics of Bread**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Quantity of the SBP Additive**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type of Fortification**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Interaction**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(Factor A)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Factor B)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(A \(\times\) B)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **0\%** & **1\%** & **5\%** & **10\%** & **umSBP** & **mSBP** & **_p-Value_ \\ \hline Protein content, P (\% d.m.) & 14.23 d & 14.09 c & 13.98 b & 13.62 a & 14.01 b & 13.95 a & 0.0000 * \\ Ash content, A (\% d.m.) & 1.01 a & 1.04 ab & 1.04 ab & 1.06 b & 1.02 a & 1.06 b & 0.0010 * \\ Fat content, F (\% d.m.) & 1.23 c & 1.19 c & 1.09 b & 0.98 a & 1.12 a & 1.13 a & 0.2742 \\ \hline Total dietary fiber content, TDF (\%) & 2.48 a & 2.74 b & 3.71 c & 4.92 d & 3.69 b & 3.26 a & 0.0000 * \\ TDF (\% d.m.) & 4.56 a & 5.08 b & 7.05 c & 9.50 d & 6.89 b & 6.20 a & 0.0000 * \\ of which insoluble dietary fiber content, S-DF & 2.92 a & 3.68 b & 4.46 c & 5.75 d & 4.39 b & 4.01 a & 0.0000 * \\ Soluble dietary fiber content, S-DF & & & & & & & \\ (\% d.m.) & 1.64 b & 1.40 a & 2.58 c & 3.75 d & 2.50 b & 2.18 a & 0.0000 * \\ Carbohydrate content, CC (\% d.m.) & 79.0 d & 78.6 c & 76.8 b & 74.8 a & 77.0 a & 77.7 b & 0.0000 * \\ of which sugars content, S (\% d.m.) & 6.3 a & 6.3 a & 6.7 b & 7.0 c & 6.4 a & 6.8 b & 0.0065 * \\ Energy value, EV (kcal/100 g) & 214 d & 211 c & 204 b & 198 a & 207 a & 206 a & 0.5338 \\ \hline Total polyphenol content, TPC & 9.52 a & 9.81 ab & 10.91 b & 12.02 c & 8.88 a & 12.25 b & 0.0012 * \\ Antioxidant activity, DPPH (\(\mu\)M Trolox/100 g d.m.) & 4.76 a & 9.59 b & 11.86 c & 12.71 c & 7.66 a & 11.80 b & 0.0004 * \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Explanations: SBP, umSBP, and mSBP, as in Table 1; letters a–d, A–B—designation of statistically homogeneous groups; *—statistically significant differences at \(p=0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of the chemical composition of bread, energy value, and antioxidant capacity. following the guidelines of the European Commission [69], a nutritional claim can be made that the obtained bread samples are a \"source of protein\". Based on the literature data [26; 47; 70], it has been shown that the antioxidant activity of bread is correlated with its total polyphenol content. Many indirect methods are currently used to measure antioxidant potential in food due to the incomplete understanding of the true antioxidant capacity of food samples' processes after ingestion and digestion [37; 62; 71]. Furthermore, the results of both polyphenol content and oxidative activity of food depend mainly on the extraction conditions, especially regarding the type of solvent used for extraction [7; 8; 49]. In this study, the total polyphenol content (TPC) in bread samples significantly increased with increased SBP powders being added to the baking flour mixtures (Table 5). Moreover, significantly lower total polyphenol contents were determined in the bread samples fortified with SBP (umSBP) than in the samples with molassed SBP (on average, 8.88 and 12.25 mg GAE/100 g d.m., respectively).