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.
One example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Solution is here: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

Now, solve this: Paragraph: Boutique fitness studios are keeping track of clients' progress with methods ranging from videotaping their workouts to measuring their fat, to posting a friendly nudge on their Facebook pages. Gregory Chertok, a sports psychology consultant with the American College of Sports Medicine, said research has shown that even small amounts of social support can produce large and lasting gains in physical activity. In a 2007 study by Stanford University in California, researchers showed that even a simple, computer-generated phone call could be effective in motivating the sedentary to exercise. "These exercisers are being held accountable by their fitness studios to a degree," he said. AKT InMotion, a New York/Connecticut chain of dance and circuit-based interval training studios, offers a $2,000, personalized, eight-week exercise and nutrition program. It includes periodic body measurements and is supervised by a fitness concierge. Anna Kaiser, founder of AKT, said photographs and measurements are taken every two weeks to track progress. "A client will say 'I still feel fat' because you don't actually see that you're changing, so it helps," said Kaiser, who added that measurements were private and optional. Accountability, she explained, is a two-way street. Clients must show up as well as work on nutrition, and if aspects of the program are not producing results, AKT will change it. Videotaping is popular for tracking progress. At Refine Method studio in New York City, which features full-body circuit training and small classes, it is used to give clients a concrete measure to gauge progress. Clients do a few key assessment moves, such as a squat, and the videotape will show how they have improved over time. Founder Brynn Putnam, a former New York City Ballet dancer, said unlike professional athletes, who can count their wins, most people don't get clear indications of progress. Regularity is also an important factor for improvement. Barry's Bootcamp, a national chain of interval cardiovascular treadmill and strength-training studios, clients can sign up for a program called 'Academy,' in which they commit to the same classes at the same-time Monday to Friday for four weeks. Trainer Joey Gonzalez said he has used Facebook to reach out to no-shows. "Social media gives us a short cut for clients who have signed up for accountability-based programs," he said. Claim: Fitness studios keep clients on track with photos, social media.
Solution:
Need a little extra encouragement to shape up in time for that wedding, class reunion or vacation?