Table 1.

Effect of herring milt protein hydrolysate (HPH) supplementation on the food intake (g) of mice fed a high-fat diet.

Treatment	Time Post Treatment (Week)
	1	2	3	5	6	8	10
LFC	3.1 ± 0.2	3.0 ± 0.2	3.5 ± 0.1	3.3 ± 0.1	3.8 ± 0.1	3.4 ± 0.2	3.2 ± 0.1
HFC	3.0 ± 0.1	3.0 ± 0.1	2.8 ± 0.1 #	2.9 ± 0.1 #	3.0 ± 0.1 #	2.9 ± 0.1 #	3.0 ± 0.1
HPH15	2.7 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	2.7 ± 0.1	2.7 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	3.0 ± 0.1
HPH35	2.6 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	2.8 ± 0.1	2.9 ± 0.1	3.1 ± 0.1
HPH70	2.4 ± 0.1	3.1 ± 0.1	3.0 ± 0.1	3.4 ± 0.2	3.3 ± 0.2	3.1 ± 0.1	3.8 ± 0.3

The results are presented as means ± SEM (n = 11−12). The difference between the HFC and LFC groups was analyzed using Student’s t-test with repeated measures. The treatment effect was analyzed using one-way ANOVA with repeated measures, and differences among the HFC, HPH15, HPH35, and HPH70 groups were determined using the least-squares means test. The significance level was set to 0.05. ^# p < 0.05 compared with LFC. LFC, low-fat control; HFC, high-fat control; HPH15, HFC diet with 15% of casein being replaced with the same amount of protein derived from herring milt protein hydrolysate; HPH35, HFC diet with 35% of casein being replaced with the same amount of protein derived from herring milt protein hydrolysate; HPH70, HFC diet with 70% casein being replaced with the same amount of protein derived from herring milt protein hydrolysate.