Table 2: Effect of the diets on weight gain, epididymal fat pad, and liver weights.

HAGE-HFLAGE-HFHAGE-LFLAGE-LF value

Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4
= 20 = 11 = 6 = 11

Four weeks
 Weight gain (g)10.4 ± 0.712 ± 0.812.3 ± 0.64.9 ± 0.5<0.0001
 Weight % gain40 ± 454.4 ± 453 ± 315.3 ± 3<0.0001
 Fat pad weight (g)1.1 ± 0.040.6 ± 0.060.7 ± 0.020.5 ± 0.03<0.0001
 Fat pad weight %2.8 ± 0.41.7 ± 0.61.8 ± 0.11.3 ± 0.3<0.0001
 Liver weight (g)2.1 ± 0.061.8 ± 0.12 ± 0.042.2 ± 0.04NS
 Liver weight %5.5 ± 0.15.4 ± 0.25.6 ± 0.15.8 ± 0.1NS

Group 5Group 6Group 7Group 8
= 7 = 10 = 6 = 8

Six weeks
 Weight gain (g)20.4 ± 1.015.4 ± 0.714.8 ± 0.514.6 ± 1.0<0.0001
 Weight % gain88.3 ± 4.469.3 ± 364 ± 2.761.4 ± 3.7<0.0001
 Fat pad weight (g)1.6 ± 0.050.9 ± 0.050.8 ± 0.030.5 ± 0.04<0.0001
 Fat pad weight %3.7 ± 0.32.3 ± 0.42.1 ± 0.21.3 ± 0.3<0.0001
 Liver weight (g)2.1 ± 0.062 ± 0.012 ± 0.042 ± 0.02NS
 Liver weight %5.2 ± 0.25.3 ± 0.15.4 ± 0.15.2 ± 0.1NS

Values are presented with mean ± SEM.
We used nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons test. Results were considered statistically significant at .
Weight % gain is expressed as weight gain in relation to initial weight of animal (final weight-initial weight/initial weight).
Fat pad weight % and liver weight % are expressed as weight of fat pad or liver in relation to final weight of animal (fat pad or liver weight/final weight).