According to this TIME article,
The basic problem is that while it’s true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn’t necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.
Demoralizing isn’t it? The article cites research that show how vigorous physical activity often makes one excessively hungry and sedentary for the rest of the day, leading to over compensation (i.e. we lose 50 calories during the workout but end up eating 500 calories to ‘reward’ ourselves).
Well they’re not saying exercise itself is useless, but rather…
The problem ultimately is about not exercise itself but the way we’ve come to define it. Many obesity researchers now believe that very frequent, low-level physical activity — the kind humans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented — may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat.
What rhetorical device is employed in the idea that exercise may be ‘making (losing weight) harder’? Can you explain why?
Think further: Is the article simply saying exercise is bad? What is the essential qualifier used to sharpen the argument? How would qualifications like these help you in writing better theses for your essays?