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.

Paragraph: There was no mentionof the potential costs of screening women for vitamin D levels (as encouraged in the release in a statement from the principal investigator) or the cost of supplementation. The release does a good job of comparing data and providing explanations for the measurements used. We'll award a Satisfactory for that precision, but as noted below under "Evidence," there was no explicit caution regarding the fact that measurements of interleukin-6 (IL-6) are only surrogates for the effects of weight loss and vitamin D on clinical outcomes related to inflammation (e.g. cancer diagnoses). IL-6 levels dropped in both the placebo and vitamin D arms, and it's not clear whether the statistically significant additional decline in IL-6 observed in the vitamin D group is clinically important. Because some of the participants were vitamin D-deficient and the dose of vitamin D provided was modest (2000 IU/d), this was a tough call. But supplementation is often so misunderstood, overhyped and oversold that some statement cautioning readers to pay attention to the specifics of this study and not apply its recommendations to everyone seems prudent. For the most part, the release provides a cautious and accurate description of what appears to be a well-conducted clinical trial in a well-defined population. For example, itnotes that weight loss and vitamin D lowered inflammation LINKED to cancer not that these things reduced cancer risk itself (something this study couldn't establish). But as noted above, we would have appreciated an explicit acknowledgment that IL-6 is a surrogate marker for the clinical outcomes that people care about. And more importantly, we're concerned about the closing commentthat women should talk to their doctors about measuring their vitamin D levels to determine the most appropriate dose. The problem is there is no evidence supporting screening or treating to a level and certainly not from this study. The US Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend routine vitamin D screening and the IOM has said that while there are data supporting the benefitsof vitamin D supplementation with bone health and fall prevention, there is no evidence supporting benefits for cancer. While testing may be warranted in those with signs or symptoms of clinical deficiency, the statement made here implies that everyone should be tested so that an appropriate dose of vitamin D can be selected. That goes beyond the available evidence. It's hard to argue that overweight, vitamin deficiency, chronic inflammation and cancer are not real threats, so no mongeringapparent here. Funding sources are well documented. The study didn't discuss alternative preventive measures or genetic causes of increased cancer risks. But this is such a broad and expansive topic that we don't think the release should have been expected to address those myriad issues. We'll rate this Not Applicable. Primary care physicians and other health providers are well positioned to monitor blood levels of vitamin D, along with dietary and exercise regimens. The news release makes that clear, albeit indirectly. As noted above, we think the release goes too far in suggesting that people ask their doctors about having their vitamin D levels checked. But we've already docked points for that, so we'll award a Satisfactory rating here. The release makes a case for this being the first clinical trial of its kind; although it's always difficult to make that statement absolutely, the writer of the release attributes the statement to the study author. As a general rule, it's probably best to say "believed to be the first." While the release meets our standard here, we also wish it had delved a bit into the background of previous vitamin D research and the conflicting and confusing messages that research has generated. Without that context, the typical reader might wronglyjump to the conclusion, based on the wording of the lede and other parts of the release, that this study of vitamin D supplementation because it was a controlled clinical trial has somehow settled the important questions about the role of vitamin D and inflammation in cancer risk. The debate remains alive and well. None detected. Claim: Weight loss plus vitamin D reduces inflammation linked to cancer, chronic disease
This news release describes a randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to learn whether adding vitamin D supplements to substantial weight loss regimens would have a synergistic effect in reducing inflammatory chemicals in the bodies of overweight, older women with levels of vitamin D considered too low. The study, published inCancer Prevention Research, has potential relevance for cancer prevention because inflammatory cytokines have been implicated in the genesis and progression of some cancers, as well as heart disease and other disorders. The release offers substantial details about the design, metrics and outcomes of the clinical trial and does a pretty good job of defining the possible reasons for the effects of chronic inflammation and weight loss on cancer development. It goes to some lengths to narrowly define the results and avoid overstatement. That said, the release ends on a sour note by encouraging readers to talk to their doctors about vitamin D testing a recommendation not consistent with U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines and which is not supported by this research. Readers might also have been better informed if the release had offered more context regarding the many conflicting and sometimes confusing studies that have previously looked for links among vitamin D, inflammatory responses, diet, overweight, sun exposure and cancer. News releases that include the words "diet," "overweight," "vitamin," and "cancer" are almost narrative nuclear events, often guaranteeing an explosion of coverage, souped up vitamin sales pitches, and lots of negative fallout whose half-life seems forever. Cancer remains the second biggestkiller disease overall of Americans, and some experts believe that it will soon pushheart disease and stroke out of first place. Thus cancer prevention is a deservedly hot topic, and it is no surprise that Americans are eager for information about ways to limit their risk. News releases that describe research on these topics have enormous power to inform and misinform.

Paragraph: Bottles of Corona beer speed past a worker in the bottling line of Mexico City's Modelo brewery, May 19, 2004. REUTERS/Andrew Winning He may be in for worse than a surprise: a nasty skin reaction that one doctor is calling "Mexican beer dermatitis." A substance in lime juice, if left on the skin in the sun, can cause the skin to become discolored, as if by poison ivy or a jellyfish sting and the marks can last for months, reports Scott Flugman in the Archives of Dermatology. Mexican beers, particularly Corona, are typically served with a lime slice wedged in the top of the bottle. The drinker shoves the lime into the bottle and holds his or her thumb over the bottle's mouth while turning the bottle over to mix in the juice. But if the drinker is not careful, the beer's carbonation can spray lime juice and beer all over his or her skin "especially in a patient who is shirtless by a beach or pool," wrote Flugman, a dermatologist in New York. The resulting reaction is due to a substance called psoralen, used to make the skin more sensitive to a wavelength of ultraviolet light, UV-A, used to treat certain skin conditions. Lemons contain psoralens too, but not as strong. "It's just a cosmetic issue," Flugman told Reuters Health, though he said the discoloration most frequently in people like bartenders who work outdoors with limes may take an emotional toll. "People are worried that it's something serious. You might have some brown spots you're been looking at for a few months," he said. Olive-skinned Caucasians may be especially susceptible. No ties have been shown between the reaction and skin cancer, said Flugman, who added that he sees two or three cases a year. They are often mystified why a dermatologist is asking them if they've recently drunk Mexican beer. His advice? "If you do this and you spritz the beer or the lime, just wash it off. Don't leave it on there and sit out in the sun," he said. Or, if you are disinclined to get up for a while, "throw a towel over it." Claim: Hold the lime with Corona, may cause skin reaction.
In a TV advertisement for Corona beer, a woman on a beach, irritated by her companion ogling a bikini-clad blonde, squirts him with the lime sitting atop his beer.

Paragraph: "Liquid chocolate is prepared in the workshop of the ""Felicitas"" chocolate shop in Hornow, south of Berlin, December 2, 2009. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch The study, which combined the results of 42 smaller studies and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also found that participants had small improvements in blood vessel function and a dip in their insulin levels. A number of past studies have found that chocolate lovers seem to have lower rates of certain heart risks, such as high blood pressure. "My take-away message would be that if people like dark chocolate, then eating a little in place of other 'treat' foods is fine, and may be beneficial," said study leader Lee Hooper, at Norwich Medical School in the UK. "However, the evidence is not yet good enough to suggest that we should all be doing this." She cautioned that the studies involved were neither large enough nor long enough to show whether eating chocolate has any effect on a person's risk of having a heart attack or stroke. In contrast to past studies, which were largely observational and couldn't prove cause-and-effect that chocolate itself caused the changes the current study focused on clinical trials, where researchers assigned people to eat chocolate or not and then watched for changes in blood pressure, cholesterol and other heart risk factors. Hooper and her team pooled data from 42 small clinical trials involving about 1,300 people and found that chocolate eaters had a few points knocked off their blood pressure readings, along with lower insulin levels and other benefits. Though it's not clear why chocolate has this affect, it's believed to be due to compounds known as flavonoids, which are also present in foods such as nuts, soy, tea and wine. But researchers acknowledged shortcomings in their study, including differences in the people involved in the trials some healthy, some with chronic health problems and different ways of testing chocolate's effects. Some studies used cocoa drinks, some solid chocolate and some cocoa supplements. They also varied in how long people were "treated," though most trials lasted less than six weeks. The biggest question may be whether any benefits would be worth the downside of chocolate. Based on the studies they used, Hooper's team writes, it could take several hundred calories' worth of chocolate to see effects on insulin and blood vessel function and that could mean trouble for your waistline. "From a practical perspective it is premature to advise individuals to consume chocolate or cocoa to decrease their risk of cardiovascular disease," said Alice Lichtenstein, director of the cardiovascular nutrition lab at Tufts University in Boston, who was not part of the study. For now, she added, if you enjoy a little chocolate in your life, you can probably keep doing so. Just don't add it in the hopes of helping your heart." Claim: Chocolate may be good for your heart: study.
Eating chocolate is not only a treat for the tongue it may also have some tangible benefits for heart health, such as lowering blood pressure slightly, according to a study involving more than a thousand people.