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.

[Q]: Paragraph: There was no discussion of costs. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories. While describing some of the differences observed in general terms without quantification, the story provided absolute percentage of men dying from prostate cancer in the two study groups. The story then went on to explain that the difference was in the men who were less 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. The story would have been better if it had more clearly explained this important caveat about the benefit seen. The potential harms associated with various approaches to treating prostate cancer as well as the increased risk of prostate cancer progression and death seen in the cohort of men who followed the watchful waiting approach were discussed. The story did a laudable job of providing information about the study reported on including the fact that the results most recently published basically expand the timeframe of followup on these men which have previously been published. It provided insight about the number of men involved in the study, how their prostate cancer was detected and that the men had been randomly assigned to their treatment group. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two clinicians who were not involved in the study provided quotes which were used in the story. The story included a list of the commonly available treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. But we must give an unsatisfactory score because the story included a factually incorrect statement indicating that watchful waiting is synonymous with active surveillance. It is not. The story went on to misinform readers by indicating "watchful waiting is often recommended when a man is not expected to die of the cancer" by failing to complete the thought by explaining that the reason they are not expected to die of the cancer is because their advanced age makes it unlikely that the cancer will have sufficient time to progress to lethality OR because they have other diseases from which they are likely to succumb before there is time for the prostate cancer to be deadly. An important caveat about how the prostate cancer in the study differed from the way in which prostate cancer is most commonly detected today in the US was explained. The story provided a reasonable view of the novelty of the treatment options detailed in the study along with the critically important caveat that the majority of the men in the study had their prostate cancer first detected at a later state than is seen with the current screening practices in the US. The story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Aggressive Treatment May Be Beneficial for Early Prostate Cancer
[A]: As with the NPR and AP stories we also reviewed, this story helped frame this issue in the first few lines rather than burying it at the end as so often is the case. To have an expert not involved in study quoted in the second paragraph saying "findings are not likely to be practice-changing" provides readers with balanced perspective right from the start. It was also good that the story concluded with a quote that expanded on what it means to "individualize" treatment. Unlike the concluding quote in the NPR story, this one provided language suggestive of shared decision making by adding 'in relation to the risk stratification of disease, PATIENT DESIRES, health status, and RISK TOLERANCE". (emphasis added) Good way to end the story. Decisions about what, if anything, to do when facing a diagnosis of early stage prostate cancer is difficult and this story provided readers with useful information to consider.

[Q]: Paragraph: HIIT can blast calories, build muscle and boost endurance with impressive efficiency in just 20 minutes a day, but the catch is finding the right level of intensity outside the comfort zone, fitness trainers say. Sean Bartram, author of the book "High Intensity Interval Training for Women," said to find that level people should think about what it is like being chased by a rabid dog. "It's just below that," he said. "To gain maximum benefits you have to push your body to a place that's almost uncomfortable." The American College of Sports Medicine predicts HIIT will be a top fitness trend in 2015. Bartram said people are drawn to it for its efficiency and almost endless variety of exercises. The bursts can be sprinting or spot jumps and the recovery can be rests or slower paced movements, he explained. "You could alternate 30 seconds of sprinting with 30 seconds of walking, or you could engage in a series of bodyweight exercises, such as push-ups, doing each for 30 seconds with 10 seconds of rest in between," he said. Dr. Michele Olson, a professor of exercise science at Auburn University at Montgomery, Alabama, said it's not high intensity unless the heart rate is elevated to near 90-plus percentage of its maximum. "Many people think they are engaging in HIIT but they are really doing traditional interval training, where the heart rate is around 75 to 85 percent of max," she said. Maximum heart rate is about 220 minus age, according to the American Heart Association. Olson said that if done properly, HIIT can increase the effectiveness in losing abdominal fat and prompt favorable changes in cholesterol and insulin levels. "There is research showing that you can cut your exercise time nearly in half," she said. About 20 minutes of HIIT can reap similar benefits of doing 35 to 40 minutes of moderate, steady-state cardio, she added, noting the training level must be intense. Hayley Zawadzki, personal training manager at New York Health and Racquet Club fitness centers, suggests that anyone starting HIIT should have a fitness analysis. "If you have a history of high blood pressure or medications, you cannot push to the absolute max," she said. Claim: Key to High Intensity Interval Training found outside comfort zone.
[A]: With High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), which consists of short bursts of intensive activity followed by short periods of recovery, fitness experts say the harder the push, the greater the reward.

[Q]: Paragraph: The news release does not mention costs. While a new therapy may not have an established price, the release could have stated "no price is available for this drug." What would be even better is some context for what women suffering from postpartum pay typically for counseling and medications. The release notes that there was a reduction in depressive symptoms of 17 points for those on the drug, and 12.8 for those in the placebo group based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The absolute reduction in the rating scale is given for each group. This information would have been much more helpful if the release also clarified the magnitude of the scale and whether a 4.2-point difference is clinically meaningful. The release contains one somewhat vague sentence on harms. The most common (10% of subjects) adverse events following during brexanolone injection administration were headache, dizziness and somnolence. Readers would also be interested in details on whether the drug is safe for nursing infants. That's not mentioned. The double-blinded randomized trials are described in detail and readers are able to judge the quality of the evidence. The published study includes an important limitation of the research that's not mentioned in the release: The trials assessed women for only 30 days; the effects of the treatment beyond 30 days are "unknown." There is no disease mongering. The release explains how common postpartum depression is worldwide. The release notes that Sage Therapeutics funded the research. Sage Therapeutics is the developer of brexanolone injection and sponsor of the trials. A New Drug Application is currently under review by the FDA and brexanolone injection has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation. The FDA has assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of December 19, 2018. What the release doesn't tell us is that both quoted researchers disclosed financial ties with Sage Therapeutics. This information was included in the studies published in the Lancet. SM-B reports personal fees from MedScape and grants from Sage Therapeutics, awarded to the University of North Carolina DRR reports personal fees and has stock options in Sage Therapeutics. The release mentions that women currently can receive antidepressants for postpartum depression, but that the new drug being studied goes to work relieving symptoms faster than traditional antidepressants days rather than weeks. The release notes that the drug is currently under FDA review, with a decision on its approval expected by the end of the year. The release notes that the new drug would be a novel treatment for postpartum depression, if approved. There is no unjustifiable language. Claim: Newly Published Results Show Investigational Treatment Brexanolone Consistently Reduced Depressive Symptoms Across Three Postpartum Depression Trials, Supporting Submission for FDA Approval
[A]:
An injectable drug, brexanolone, showed some effectiveness in treating postpartum depression in two phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled trials including 247 women from 30 different research centers, according to research led by the University of North Carolina. Their research showed reductions in reported depression symptoms among study volunteers receiving either the drug or placebo (17 points for those on the drug, compared to a reduction of 12.8 points reduction for those on a placebo). This study about a potential new drug is important, but the way it is reported leaves holes for the reader. The research was funded by the drug maker, Sage Therapeutics, and the two researchers quoted in the release have financial links to the drug manufacturer. The release should have given us more context about the amount of improvement, and been straightforward about the conflicts of interest. The American Psychological Association estimates that up to one-in-seven women in the US suffer from some form of postpartum depression, and this disorder can linger for some of them and interfere with their bonding with their child. Existing treatments, such as talk therapy and antidepressants are not always successful and may take weeks to improve the situation. If approved by the FDA, the drug could be an advance in the treatment of postpartum depression which is common and sometimes serious.