## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Texture  
According to [PERSON]'s post hoc test, the meat prepared with different marinades differed significantly (\(p=0.05\)) in terms of hardness: the samples marinated with paprika were on average 15% harder, but the samples enriched with bioactive components did not differ significantly (\(p=0.05\)) from the nonenriched samples. The four groups of samples from the control and three different HHP treatments differed significantly (\(p=0.05\)) from each other: the marinated but non-HHP-treated sample groups were on average 24% harder than the raw sample, the sample groups treated at 300 MPa were on average 22% harder than the non-HHP-treated sample groups and the sample groups treated at 450 MPa were on average 25% harder than the sample groups treated at 300 MPa, while the sample groups treated at 600 MPa were on average 19% harder than the sample groups treated at 450 MPa. This can be explained by coagulation of the meat proteins. The hardness of the raw samples differed significantly (\(p=0.05\)) from the other sample groups based on all four factors. The effect of storage time was also observed in the samples, clearly showing the softening, texture-tenderizing effect of the marinades. The 12- and 14-day sample groups were significantly (\(p=0.05\)) softer than the other sample groups, but not significantly different from each other (\(p=0.05\)). The 7-day sample groups were on average 19% harder than the other sample groups, and the 0-day and 4-day sample groups were significantly (\(p=0.05\)), on average, 13% harder than the 7-day sample groups. The sample groups for the first two measurement days did not differ significantly (\(p=0.05\)) from each other. The hardness results for the different sample groups are illustrated in Table 3.  
The penetration work value of raw meat samples was also significantly different (\(p=0.05\)) from the penetration work value of marinated samples. However, the penetration work values of marinated samples with different flavorings and of samples enriched and not enriched with bioactive components were not significantly different (\(p=0.05\)). By analyzing the penetration work of the samples treated at different pressures, results similar to the hardness analysis were obtained. However, in this case, the raw samples were not significantly different (\(p=0.05\)) from the marinated but not HHP-treated samples. This was probably because the marinade induced exudate formation and a harder crust was formed on the surface of the meat, which increased the maximum force, namely the hardness, but the work performed during the total penetration was not significantly different. Sample groups treated with HHP at different pressures were significantly (\(p=0.05\)) different from each other based on penetration work. In ascending order, there was an average difference of 37%, 24% and 17% in penetration work between the sample groups treated at 0 MPa, 300 MPa, 450 MPa and 600 MPa. An interesting observation was that the effect of storage time was not clear, partly due to the large standard deviation of the biological samples, but the trend was similar to the differences observed for hardness. The penetration work results for the different sample groups are shown in Table 4.  
Previous studies tested HHP-treated post-rigor meat in the range of 130-520 MPa, 100-600 MPa and 200-800 MPa. A disintegration of the myofibrils was observed as a result of the pressure, but the meat did not become softer or more tender. Overall, the pressure-treated meats were found to be firmer than the untreated meats, and in addition, the firmer the meat, the higher the pressure [36; 37; 38; 39]. These results are similar to the results of this study. The hardening of meat following pressure treatment at room temperature or lower temperatures can be explained by irreversible structural changes in the myofibrils [40]. The change is related to the applied pressure and the pressure at which the structural change starts depends on the animal species [41].