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.

Example input: 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
Example output: 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.
Example 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.
Q: Paragraph: But fitness experts say even the best-intentioned get-fit efforts can founder before the demands of a corporate culture that is stressful, sedentary and increasingly round-the-clock. "This demand for 24/7 access, this idea that I can always access you and you should intensely, immediately respond, is a stressor, and we know from studies that chronic stress will shorten your life and ultimately kill you," said Dr. Mary Ellen Rose, a Washington, D.C.-based consultant for workplace health promotion. Rose believes that even the wearable fitness bands and watches meant to keep exercisers on track can be counter-productive. "When you're happy and healthy, you're more productive," she said. "But for people who are high anxiety, monitoring every little thing becomes a stressor." Obesity costs employers about $73 billion annually in absenteeism and medical expenses, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Patrick Hitchins, co-founder of FitRankings, an Austin, Texas-based fitness tech company that ranks the fitness levels of individuals and companies, notes that most fit people in a company are usually the executives. "For employees to perform at their best they need to be fit, yet workplaces have become anti-fit and increasingly sedentary," he said. Hitchins believes companies have a long way to go before they see their employees as athletes rather than as cogs in a machine. "(We need) to raise that awareness on the corporate level that its (fitness) is cheaper than a trip to the hospital," he said. Installing showers at the office and welcoming yoga pants at midday meetings are among the methods that Alexia Brue, co-founder with Melisse Gelula of the wellness media company Well+Good, said corporations can use in the workplace. "One of the challenges is (creating the) acceptance that you can work out at lunch and come back to the desk sweaty," said New York-based Brue. "Culturally there needs to be a shift, so workers can roll into office from their workout." On the hopeful side, Brue cites the rise of "sweatworking," or entertaining clients in boutique fitness studios rather than bars, as a good sign. "We also need to get out the message that it's as important to unplug and to, say, meditate as it is to be always and immediately responsive, " she said. Claim: Workplace workouts can snag on stressful corporate culture.
A:
As evidence mounts that fit employees are productive workers, companies have slotted into the corporate routine an array of workplace workout initiatives, from in-house gyms to lunchtime yoga.