Table 2.

Effects of dietary EGCG on muscle composition and physicochemical properties of common carp muscle (C. carpio L.).

Parameters	Dietary EGCG levels (g/kg)					P-value
	0	0.05	0.25	0.5	1	A	L	Q
Dry matter (%)1	20.63 ± 0.85	20.98 ± 0.10	20.58 ± 0.12	20.33 ± 0.14	20.62 ± 0.32	0.868	0.624	0.988
Crude protein (% DM)2	82.26 ± 0.28c	86.61 ± 0.47a	83.59 ± 0.51bc	84.18 ± 0.51b	83.38 ± 0.84bc	0.003	0.916	0.009
Crude lipid (% DM)3	4.75 ± 0.10a	4.51 ± 0.06a	4.56 ± 0.08a	4.59 ± 0.03a	3.94 ± 0.20b	<0.001	<0.001	0.022
Crude Ash (% DM)4	8.22 ± 0.84	7.71 ± 0.98	8.17 ± 0.59	7.70 ± 0.41	7.07 ± 0.18	0.748	0.300	0.651
Cooking loss (%)5	17.41 ± 0.58a	14.60 ± 0.67b	16.08 ± 0.49ab	14.72 ± 0.87b	17.32 ± 0.51a	0.007	0.970	0.002
Drip loss (%)6	21.60 ± 0.68a	17.50 ± 0.71b	18.65 ± 1.46b	18.42 ± 0.21b	21.34 ± 0.45a	0.016	0.870	0.002
pH7	6.65 ± 0.06c	6.83 ± 0.05bc	6.89 ± 0.05ab	6.85 ± 0.08ab	7.05 ± 0.02a	0.011	0.001	0.673
Lactate content (mmol/gprot)8	1.34 ± 0.02a	1.33 ± 0.04a	1.21 ± 0.04b	1.26 ± 0.03ab	1.11 ± 0.03c	<0.001	<0.001	0.365
Hydroxyproline (μg/mg tissue)9	0.53 ± 0.02a	0.51 ± 0.02ab	0.55 ± 0.02a	0.49 ± 0.02ab	0.47 ± 0.01b	0.041	0.030	0.151

^1–4Values are means ± SEM (n = 3). ^5–7Values are means ± SEM (n = 6). ^8–9Values are means ± SEM (n = 9). One-way ANOVA followed by Duncan's test was used to analyze the discrepancy among all the groups. Values in the same row with different superscripts represent statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). The P-values indicate a significantly linear or quadratic dose–response relationship (P < 0.05). Liner trend and quadratic trend were analyzed by polynomial contrasts (A, ANOVA; L, linear; Q, quadratic). EGCG was supplemented at 0, 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, or 1 g/kg.