"Exact same" represents a grammatical practice that is particularly prevalent in American English; the use of an adjective for an adverb. In this phrase "exact" modifies "same" and is functioning as and adverb.
In the literal sense "exact same" is indeed redundant, however, words aren't quite so precisely defined as apparently your teach would have you believe. If I have a Hugo Bos blue shirt with an 18 inch collar, someone with a Hugo Bos blue shirt with a 20 inch collar might think we have the same shirt. In fact, someone with a Hugo Bos white shirt with a 20 inch collar might think we have the same.
You might even argue that if they are two shirts identical in every respect they are still not "the same" shirt. If I wore my shirt today, and again tomorrow, you might tell me "you're wearing the same shirt as yesterday", and that would be absolutely literally true.
Which is to say, "same" is used rather more loosely than "the identical object" in common language.
By modifying it with "exact" you are emphasizing that they are even more "same" than if you did not so modify.
Many words sound like they are absolute, binary, and not subject to gradation. However, I am reminded of a discussion between Sheldon Cooper and Stuart the comic book guy on the hilarious TV show "The Big Bang Theory":
Stuart: Ooh, Sheldon, I’m afraid you couldn’t be more wrong.
Sheldon: More wrong? Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation.
Stuart: Of course it is. It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a
vegetable, it’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge.
It does smack of redundancy, especially in the context you provided, where the statement is further reinforced by the preceding 'was and remains'.
Logically anything that is inconsistent will be consistently so, since 'inconsistent' covers any behaviour apart from actual consistency. It's like saying that something is consistently chaotic. What is 'inconsistent' chaos? It gets pretty metaphysical pretty quickly.
For that reason, I'd say the best use for the phrase (and probably the reason why many articles use it), is to create humour.
On the other hand, it can also be used (and is likely the intended meaning in the example you cited) to mean that the results of the exercise fluctuate widely, but also in a predictable way. In which case I suppose the usage is valid, but still a little redundant. I'm not aware of a single term that could capture the sentiment, though.
Best Answer
Yes, it is redundant since "currently" and "at the moment" mean the same thing. Instead, you could say either:
or