## 3 Results  
According to Table 1, significant differences in body mass gain were observed between the control group and all other groups (\(p<0.05\)). The exercise groups, MICT and HICT, exhibited lower body mass gains (17.0 g and 13.9 g) and lower FER values (1.72 \(\pm\) 0.21 and 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.10). The Q\({}_{10}\) group demonstrated a modest body mass gain (9.38 g) but a notably lower FER (0.57). In contrast, the MICTQ\({}_{10}\) and HICTQ\({}_{10}\) groups experienced the greatest reductions in body mass (\(-\)15.2 g and \(-\)12.6 g) and recorded the lowest FER values (\(-\)1.32 and \(-\)1.07). According to Figure 2, different exercise intensities and CoQ\({}_{10}\) supplementation significantly influenced body mass days (\(p\) = 0.01, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.37), groups (\(p\) = 0.002, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.80), and the interaction between these factors (\(p\) = 0.001, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.38). At baseline, the groups exhibited similar body mass values. However, on the 14 th day, the MICTQ\({}_{10}\) group and HICTQ\({}_{10}\) group had the lowest body mass compared to the control group (\(\chi^{2}\) = 5.927, \(p\) < 0.002, \(\eta^{2}\) = 2.21). On the 21 st day, the C group indicated the highest body mass, significantly differentiating from all other groups (\(\chi^{2}\) = 6.788, \(p\) < 0.002, \(\eta^{2}\) = 2.00). This trend continued similarly on days 28 th and 35 th. However, by days 42 nd and 50 th the C group had the highest body mass, while the MICTQ\({}_{10}\) group exhibited the lowest body mass (\(p\) = 0.0003, d = 4.02). Additionally, the HICTQ\({}_{10}\) group had the second-lowest body mass during these periods (\(p\) = 0.0001, d = 3.99). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Body Mass (g)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Feed Intake**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Baseline** & **50 th Day** & **Gain** & **Total (g)** & **Daily (g/day)** & **FER** \\ \hline C & 313.0 \(\pm\) 6.62 & 430.7 \(\pm\) 9.31 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 117.6 \(\pm\) 8.10 \({}^{\text{aa}}\) & 5.270 \(\pm\) 20.3 & 10.11 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 11.6 \(\pm\) 1.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ MICT & 312.1 \(\pm\) 4.01 & 329.1 \(\pm\) 7.71 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 17.0 \(\pm\) 4.21 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.415 \(\pm\) 17.4 & 10.94 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ HICT & 311.0 \(\pm\) 7.88 & 325.0 \(\pm\) 9.18 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 13.9 \(\pm\) 2.01 \({}^{\text{bbc}}\) & 5.449 \(\pm\) 27.5 & 11.14 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Q\({}_{10}\) & 310.1 \(\pm\) 6.90 & 319.5 \(\pm\) 8.61 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 9.38 \(\pm\) 3.61 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.445 \(\pm\) 18.1 & 11.11 \(\pm\) 0.98 & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{cb}}\) \\ MICTQ\({}_{10}\) & 313.2 \(\pm\) 10.61 & 298.0 \(\pm\) 11.1 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(-\)15.2 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\text{zd}}\) & 5.510 \(\pm\) 28.0 & 11.48 \(\pm\) 1.01 & \(-\)1.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ HICTQ\({}_{10}\) & 314.0 \(\pm\) 8.67 & 301.4 \(\pm\) 7.21 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(-\)12.6 \(\pm\) 3.33 \({}^{\text{zd}}\) & 5.555 \(\pm\) 38.0 & 11.74 \(\pm\) 0.69 & \(-\)1.07 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The food efficiency ratio (FER) relative to body mass, along with mean body masses (\(\pm\)SD) at baseline and on the 50 th day, as well as body mass gain calculated as their difference, is presented. Total feed intake represents cumulative consumption per group, while daily intake is derived by dividing total intake by the number of days and rats per group. C: control, MICT: moderate-intensity continuous training group, HICT: high-intensity continuous training group, Q\({}_{10}\): coenzyme Q\({}_{10}\) group, MICTQ\({}_{10}\): moderate-intensity training with Q\({}_{10}\) group, and HICTQ\({}_{10}\): high-intensity training with Q\({}_{10}\) group. Intergroup differences in body mass gain and FER were analyzed via Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by [PERSON]’s multiple comparisons (a, b, c indicate significance). # denotes Wilcoxon test results.