Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
--------
Question: Paragraph: During the warm, waning summer days, fresh air workouts offer a wealth of new ways to boost the mood, channel the inner child and even burn extra calories. Chris Freytag, a personal trainer and health coach with the American Council on Exercise, loves the gym but lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a city notorious for brutal winters. “I’m a big believer in change of venue, of getting away from the same treadmill, the same spot. And there’s something about fresh air and moving in space,” said Freytag, who leads boot camp and circuit classes in parks and parking lots during the summer months. The changing terrain can also inspire the solitary exerciser to mix it up. “I’m all about hills: every time you see a hill or steps or stairs, lunge at it,” said Freytag. “Step up and down on curbs and park benches.”  A child’s playground offers core-strengthening possibilities from deep plank pushups, with feet placed on swings, to training with resistance bands slung around poles, to monkey bar pull-ups, she explained. Research suggest the outdoor boost can be mental as well as physical. In a 2014 study on indoor versus outdoor activity published in the journal Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being researchers analyzed national survey data from Finland. They found that nature provides an added value to the known benefits of physical activity and repeated exercise in nature is, in particular, connected to better emotional well-being. In his book “Beat the Gym,” Connecticut-based running coach and personal trainer Tom Holland said running on a treadmill is slightly easier than running on the ground. “You don’t have to deal with changing terrain, wind resistance,” he said, adding that the zero incline on most treadmills is actually slightly downhill. New York City-based personal trainer JR Allen, said the first benefit of the outdoor workout is balance. “You have to be aware of your surroundings because you could step in a pothole,” Allen said. “It is a less safe, more uncontrolled environment that is more of a strain on your body.”  Allen suggests the newcomer to outdoor exercise should start with a simple walk around the neighborhood. The seasoned exerciser should head to the park for sprints, power push ups, in which hands leave the ground, and walking planks, moving side to side and back to back on hands and feet. Daniel Taylor, author of the book “Conditioning to the Core,” thinks outdoor training is great as long as people take some precautions. “People who utilize children’s playground equipment ought to double check it. Make sure bars aren’t slippery,” he said. “One of the reasons we go to the gym is it’s safe and dry.” Claim: Parks, playgrounds offer fresh air alternatives to gym workouts.

Answer: From park bench pushups and monkey bar lifts to open air runs, fitness experts say the workout possibilities of playgrounds and parks are worth the consideration of even the most diehard gym users.


Question: Paragraph: Members of the New York delegation, joined by first responders, survivors and family members, lamented an announcement by the Justice Department that the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund is running low on money and future payments may be cut by up to 70 percent. Comedian Jon Stewart, a longtime advocate for 9/11 responders, called the Feb. 15 announcement by the fund’s special master “unconscionable” and said Congress has a moral obligation to step in. At a news conference at the Capitol, Stewart said it was “nonsense” that first responders and their families again have to “beg” Congress for money nearly 18 years after the attacks. “This is nonsense. This is theater. You know it and I know it,” Stewart said. “If the American people in their busy lives had any sense that these shenanigans were going on, they would be outraged.” He and other speakers urged Congress to act quickly to restore the fund and ensure it has enough money to pay benefits for the next 70 years — or as long as victims need it. Anything less than full and permanent funding is “shameful,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., adding the death toll from the 2001 attacks “is still growing.” “It should not be a fight to pass this bill again,” Gillibrand said. The collapse of the World Trade Center in September 2001 sent a cloud of thick dust billowing over Lower Manhattan. Fires burned for weeks. Thousands of construction workers, police officers, firefighters and others spent time working in the soot, often without proper respiratory protection. In the years since, many have seen their health decline, some with respiratory or digestive-system ailments that appeared almost immediately, others with illnesses that developed as they aged, including cancer. Nearly 40,000 people have applied to the federal fund for people with illnesses potentially related to being at the World Trade Center site, the Pentagon or Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after the attacks. About 19,000 claims are pending. Nearly $5 billion in benefits have been awarded out of the $7.3 billion fund. Rupa Bhattacharyya, special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, said she was “painfully aware of the inequity” of the potential cuts, but said awarding some funds for every valid claim would be preferable to sending some legitimate claimants away empty-handed. Fund officials estimate it would take another $5 billion to pay pending claims and claims that officials anticipate will be submitted before the fund’s December 2020 deadline. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the cost of restoring the program is minimal compared to the cruelty of failing to do so. “A great nation cannot nickel-and-dime people that have sacrificed their health on our behalf,” he said. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., said the 9/11 attacks “were not just a New York event” or an East Coast event, but were an attack on all Americans. “This is a sea-to-shining-sea moment, a sea-to-shining sea promise, a sea-to-shining-sea obligation,” Gardner said. The victims’ fund should “not be extended for a moment but for a lifetime,” he added. Stewart, reverting to comic form, said the victims’ fund was “like a Starbucks card. We’re just asking to get a little more money.” Claim: Lawmakers, first responders sound alarm on 9/11 fund.

Answer: More than 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, first responders and their advocates were back at the Capitol Monday urging Congress to ensure that a victims’ compensation fund does not run out of money.


Question: Paragraph: "A model puts on a chocolate accessory backstage before the 9th Annual Chocolate Fashion Show in New York November 9, 2006. REUTERS/Eric Thayer (UNITED STATES) Researchers said the findings, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, don’t prove that adding a candy bar to your daily diet will help you shed pounds. Nor did the total amount of chocolate consumed have an impact. But the researchers, led by Beatrice Golomb, from the University of California San Diego, said it was possible that antioxidants in chocolate could be behind health benefits including lower blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as decreased body weight. “People have just assumed that because it comes with calories and it’s typically eaten as a sweet, therefore it would inherently have been one way, bad,” said Golomb. She and her colleagues used data from a study on cholesterol-lowering drugs that surveyed 1,000 healthy adults on typical eating habits, including how often they ate chocolate. The participants, who ranged from 20 to 85 years old, ate chocolate an average of twice per week and had an average body mass index, or BMI, of 28, which is considered overweight but not obese. The researchers found that people who ate chocolate with greater frequency tended to eat more calories overall, including more saturated fat, than those who went light on the candy. But even so, chocolate lovers tended to have a lower body weight. That was still the case after researchers accounted for age and gender, as well as how much they exercised. The effect worked out to a 2.3 to 3.2 kg (5 to 7 lb)difference between people who ate five servings of chocolate a week compared to those who didn’t eat any, Golomb said. However, it was only how often they ate chocolate, rather than the total amount, that was linked to their weight. Past studies have tied chocolate to lower blood pressure and cholesterol, and better insulin sensitivity, possibly because of antioxidants or other chemicals in cocoa. There are a number of possible explanations for the results, said Eric Ding, a nutritionist at the Harvard Medical School who was not involved in the study. One is that poorer people stick to the basics when they’re buying food and don’t eat as much chocolate. Poverty has been tied to higher body weight. Another possibility is that “people who lost weight reward themselves with chocolate, more than chocolate causing the weight loss,” he told Reuters Health. Because the new study is relatively small and couldn’t prove cause-and-effect, it’s hard to take any lessons from the findings, Ding said. But the key for chocolate lovers seems to be considering calories and knowing that not all chocolate is created equal. For example, past evidence suggests that antioxidants in chocolate called flavonoids are behind any benefits tied to chocolate — and dark chocolate has the most flavonoids. “If you consume chocolate, consume it in place of something else, rather than adding to your net daily calories. Try to consume dark chocolate,” he said. The researchers agreed that moderation is important. ""This certainly does not provide support for eating large amounts of chocolate,"" Golomb said. ""For those of us who do eat a little bit of chocolate regularly, perhaps any guilt associated with that might be qualified."" SOURCE: bit.ly/6D3TRk" Claim: Chocolate lovers tend to weigh less: study.

Answer:
People who ate chocolate a few times a week or more weighed less than those who rarely indulged, according to a U.S. study involving a thousand people.