## 3 Results and Discussion
### Color  
According to the results of [PERSON]'s post hoc test, the marinated sample groups with different flavorings were significantly different from each other and from the raw samples (\(p\) = 0.05) in terms of a*, b* and h\({}_{\text{ab}}\). In terms of L* value, only the herb-marinated samples differed significantly (\(p\) = 0.05) by on average 13% from the raw and paprikamarinated samples. The differences were 64-96% for a* and b*, which is a color difference clearly visible to the naked eye. It is interesting to note that in the case of the green herb marinade, a value close to 0 for a* was measured, which means that the sample is neither green nor red. This was probably due to the fact that the measured spots had approximately the same proportion of green herb pieces and red meat surfaces. All color measurement results are well explained by the coloring effect of the natural coloring substances in the marinades (herbs or paprika). In the case of h\({}_{\text{ab}}\), the adequacy of the color measurement can be clearly validated, as the raw samples showed the pink color typical of raw meat, the paprika samples showed orange and the herb samples showed yellowish-green hues. There was no significant difference between the color factors of the BA+ and BA\(-\) samples (\(p\) = 0.05), except for the factor a*, where the BA+ samples were on average 13% redder than the BA\(-\) samples. This is basically due to the orange-red color of piperine. Although this difference is not visible to the naked eye, it is very detectable by instrumental measurement. Storage time also had an effect on the color of the samples. The 0-day samples were significantly different (\(p\) = 0.05) from the samples from other measurement days, which were not significantly different (\(p\) = 0.05) from each other. The relative difference between the two homogenous groups was on average 4-11% depending on the color factor, which is nominally small. The color factors of the HHP-treated sample groups were not significantly different (\(p\) = 0.05) from each other, but were significantly different (\(p\) = 0.05) from the non-HHP-treated (0 MPa) sample groups. This difference was mostly observed for two color factors: an average relative difference of 10% for L* and a relative difference of almost 40% for b*. Both can be explained by the coagulation of meat proteins and coloring carotenoids darkening the meat during treatment. The HHP treatment and the piperine addition by itself had a strong and significant effect on the colors. However, the interaction effect of these two factors, although significant, with a Wilks's lambda value of 0.836, was the least impactful of the dependent variables. This can be explained by the fact that, in the case of color, the two effects did not strengthen or weaken each other, as they mainly affected other color factors. In addition, piperine did not degrade or change color more strongly in reaction to HHP treatment. The results of the color factors are presented in Tables 5-8. The increase in the lightness factor (L*) is one of the most common color changes reported in the previous study results and is typically observed in treatments above 200 MPa in case of pork and other mammal meat [41; 42; 43]. Increasing the lightness of meat is associated with protein coagulation, which results in the loss of solubility of sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar proteins [44], furthermore with denaturation of myoglobin where the heme group in myoglobin is displaced or completely released from muscle cells [45].