Ry fat (t = -2.609; p 0.05) were considerable predictors in the model. 3.five. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Observations three.5. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Observations3.five.1. Interleukin (IL)three.five.1. Interleukin (IL)-1 IL1 Caspase 13 Proteins Molecular Weight immunostaining in muscle fibers was mainly membranous and cytoplasmic and rarelynuclear; from time to time, it was detectable in the muscle satellite cells. The intensity of IL1 IL-1 immunostaining in muscle fibers was mostly membranous and cytoplasmic and seldom immunostaining (densitometric count pixel2) was Glucocorticoid Receptor Proteins Source detected in a lot of fields of the analyzed samples, nuclear; occasionally, it was detectable within the muscle satellite cells. The intensity of IL-1 albeit at distinctive levels. In detail: the immunostaining in R was reduce than in RDR, HFBDS, immunostaining (densitometric count pixel2) was detected in lots of fields in the analyzed samples, HFBDR, HFEVODS, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in RDS, it was decrease than in RDR, HFBDS, HFBDR, albeit at different levels. In detail: the immunostaining decrease than in HFBDS, R-DR, HFB-DS, HFB-DR, HFEVODS, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in RDR, it was in R was reduced than in HFBDR (p 0.01); in HFEVO-DS, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in R-DS, it was reduced than in R-DR, HFB-DS, HFB-DR, HFEVO-DS, HFBDS, it was larger than in HFEVODS (p 0.01); in HFBDR, it was larger than in HFEVODS HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in R-DR, it reduce than in HFEVODR (p 0.01) (Figure 0.01); in HFB-DS, it (p 0.01); in HFEVODS, it was was lower than in HFB-DS, HFB-DR (p 3). In relation to was greater than in HFEVO-DSthe 0.01); in outcomes had been was larger to these HFEVO-DS (p 0.01); the immunostained area , (p statistical HFB-DR, it analogues than in of the intensity of in HFEVO-DS, it was reduce than in HFEVO-DR (p 0.01) (Figure 3). In relation for the immunostained immunostaining (information not shown).area , the statistical outcomes were analogues to those on the intensity of immunostaining (information not shown).Nutrients 2018, ten,Nutrients 2018, 10,8 of8 ofFigure 3. IL-1 immunostaining, a graph representing the immunostained location color represents the immunolabelling (inserts), and image evaluation by computer software in which the red with statistical immunolabelling (inserts), and also a graph representing the immunostained region with statistical evaluation evaluation (pvalues inside the table). For details, see the text. The data are presented as imply SD. Scale (p-values within the table). For facts, see the text. The information are presented as mean SD. Scale bars: 50 . bars: 50 m.Figure 3. IL1 immunostaining, image evaluation by software program in which the red color represents the3.five.2. IGF1 3.5.2. IGF-1 In muscle tissue, IGF1 immunostaining was mostly membranous and cytoplasmic and seldom In muscle tissue, IGF-1 immunostaining was mainly membranous and cytoplasmic and seldom nuclear. intensity of IGF-1-immunostaining (densitometric count pixel2) was was detected at nuclear. TheThe intensity of IGF1immunostaining (densitometric count pixel2) detected at unique different degrees in In detail: In detail: in R, the immunostaining was larger HFB-DS, HFB-DR, degrees in all groups. all groups. in R, the immunostaining was higher than in than in HFBDS, HFBDR, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); (p 0.01); was larger than in HFB-DS, HFB-DR, HFBDR, HFEVO-DS, HFEVODS, HFEVODR in R-DS, it in RDS, it was larger than in HFBDS, HFEVO-DS, HFEVODS, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in RDR, it was higher tha.