TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: 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.

SOLUTION: 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.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The U.N. agency is seeking to balance the need to ensure China continues to share information about the virus while also giving sound scientific advice to the international community on the risks, according to several public health experts and a Western diplomat who tracks the WHO's work. The WHO has declared five global emergencies in the past decade, including the ongoing Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Doing so can hurt host countries because it may lead to flight cancellations and travel or trade restrictions, dragging on the economy. In the latest case, the WHO declined to declare China's coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern(PHEIC) twice last week, although its Emergency Committee was split "50-50" over whether to do so. "What was lacking for them to declare an international emergency were deaths abroad and human-to-human transmission outside of China," said the Geneva-based diplomat following the agency. "If there was proof of human-to-human spread among the 'imported' cases, the panel would lean toward another finding." WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier declined to comment beyond what he told a news briefing earlier on Tuesday. He restated that the WHO's criteria for a global emergency include a "serious or unusual" health situation that affects other countries and may require a coordinated international response. In reply to a question, he added: "It is not 'wildly spreading' outside of China." While the vast majority of the 4,500 or so confirmed cases and all 106 deaths so far have been in China, cases in Germany, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan where the virus has spread person-to-person have heightened concerns. "As information is coming in, it seems to be confirming our worst fears," Lawrence Gostin, university professor at Georgetown Law in Washington, DC, told Reuters. "So I do believe that the WHO is going to have to declare an emergency and is going to have to take the lead ... You can't leave this to China." The WHO's 16-member expert panel is being "kept in the loop" and could be reconvened at any time to reassess the outbreak. "Just because of rising numbers in China now this would not automatically trigger an Emergency Committee," Lindmeier told the briefing. A declaration would lead to boosting public health measures, funding and resources to prevent and reduce global spread. It could include recommendations on trade and travel, although the WHO generally tries to avoid disruptive trade restrictions. The Emergency Committee deliberations are secret and its members have been told not to speak about their debate, several WHO officials told Reuters. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing on Tuesday to discuss how to protect Chinese citizens and foreigners in areas affected by the virus and "possible" evacuation alternatives, Lindmeier said. China has agreed that the WHO can send international experts there as soon as possible to increase understanding of the new coronavirus and guide the global response to the outbreak, the WHO said at the end of Tedros' two-day visit. Some experts believe the Geneva-based health agency is in a difficult position, having drawn fire in the past for acting either too quickly or too slowly. "Essentially the WHO is between a rock and a hard place," said Jeremy Farrar, an expert in infectious disease epidemics and director of the Wellcome Trust global health charity. Farrar noted that the organization was criticised for having called an early emergency in 2009 for the H1N1 flu pandemic, which proved mild, and then for being too late in declaring the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014. Claim: WHO weighs science and politics in global virus emergency decision.

SOLUTION: Most of the World Health Organization's (WHO) criteria for declaring a global emergency have been met, but it is awaiting clear evidence of a sustained spread of the new coronavirus outside China before doing so, some experts and diplomats said.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "New airport security measures are coming under fire from pilots and passengers, who fear the latest post-9/11 protocols are too invasive and potentially harmful. You've probably seen the stories. The Transportation Security Administration's new full-body scanners, which are in use at 68 airports nationwide, transfer a potentially harmful amount of radiation and produce what amounts to a naked image, critics say. And the alternative to the scan, an embarrassing pat down, may be even worse. Pilots' unions oppose the measures, as do an increasing number of passengers -- who feel the federal government has taken things too far. PolitiFact can't weigh in on that. But we can explore the safety concerns about the full-body scan. Particularly, we found worth analyzing the defense mounted by John Pistole, head of the TSA. During a Nov. 16, 2010, interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Pistole said the ""radiation coming from those machines are equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet."" The TSA, on its website, says the radiation emitted from the body scan is equivalent to just two minutes of a plane flight. Are those claims credible? Yes. Though there is some disagreement. Let us explain. In preparing to deploy the scanners to airports across the country, the TSA studied the amount of radiation a person would be exposed to per scan to determine if the machines were safe. Scientists at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory found that the effective dose per screening was 1.58 microrems of radiation, while a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, said an adult would be exposed to 2.4 microrems of radiation per scan. We understand those figures mean nothing to most people. So let's put it into perspective. A single chest X-ray exposes a person to between 8,000 and 10,000 microrems (or 8 to 10 millirems), according to experts at Princeton University and the Department of Energy. A pack-a-day smoker exposes himself to 15,000 to 20,000 microrems of radiation a year (tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive lead and polonium). Put simply, it would take at least 3,300 body scans to reach the equivalent of one chest X-ray. What's also important to note -- and a bit scary -- is that you're being exposed to radiation right now. Radiation is naturally occurring in our environment no matter where you are. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that each year, the average adult is exposed to 300 millirems of naturally occurring radiation (300,000 microrems) and 60 millirems (60,000 microrems) of man-made radiation. Pistole, in his claim, is talking about naturally occurring cosmic radiation you're exposed to during airplane travel. The amount of cosmic radiation a person is exposed to varies based on a number of factors, but to oversimplify, a key component is how high you are above sea level. People living in Denver, which is 1 mile above sea level, are exposed to more cosmic radiation than someone living in Florida. And people flying 30,000 feet in the air are exposed to more radiation than peopleon the ground. The amount of radiation varies depending upon the specific flight plan, but the Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all say that a person on a six- to eight-hour flight will be exposed to somewhere around 2,000 to 5,000 microrems of radiation. For our analysis, however, we are relying on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which calculates the radiation exposure per hour based on the altitude of the flight. According to NOAA, a person flying at 30,000 feet will be exposed to between 285 and 406 microrems of radiation an hour, or between 4.75 and 6.77 microrems per minute of flight. All the numbers and science back up Pistole's claim -- as little as three minutes of air travel produces the equivalent amount of radiation as one TSA body scan. By most estimates, Pistole's claim actually is conservative. However, all scientists aren't sold on the comparison. Nor are they sold on the safety of the scanners. We think it's important for you hear their side, too. Four faculty members at the University of California, San Francisco, authored a letter in April expressing their concerns about the body scanning devices. Primarily, the professors worried that the radiation was being concentrated in the skin and underlying tissue, and that it was not being dispersed throughout the entire body. That concentration of radiation to the skin could be ""dangerously high,"" wrote the faculty members -- John Sedat, Marc Shuman, Robert Stroud and David Agard, who said a comparison to cosmic radiation spread over the entire body is misleading. The FDA, in a detailed response, said the concerns were unfounded, andhealth risks associated with the full body scanners were ""minuscule."" To be clear, this fact check isn't declaring TSA's new full-body scanners safe. We're simply looking at the comparative exposure to radiation as suggested by Pistole, who said that the radiation coming from the new TSA body scanners ""are equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet."" It may sound strange, but it's right." Claim: "The radiation coming from the new TSA body scanners is ""equivalent to about three minutes' worth of air travel by anybody, say, at 30,000 feet."

SOLUTION:
TSA administrator claims new body scanners emit as much radiation as three minutes of air travel