Originally Posted by Happy Feet

You have quoted the most generic material from a source not even involved in the study and ignore the actual findings being discussed.
Yes, how much you burn per hour has been known, yes hourly absorption rates are also known; but what was not known until now was the upper limit of daily caloric intake possible (which have now been defined at 2.5x basal metabolic rate according to the study).

From that point people engaging in long term endurance activities can more accurately generate meaningful plans for energy output that maximizes effort while maintaining physical strength. Guessing at the burn/uptake rate means one can either over consume calories for no benefit (but at a cost in hauling or caching) or more importantly, not consume enough calories and waste muscle tissue to compensate. Short term that may not matter but, as alluded to in the Scott reference, long term it could mean deteriorating to the point of failure.

It also means you can calculate the estimated energy output you should strive for during long term activities (2.5 BMR). Beyond that figure you cannot fuel your output and will waste muscle as a result. To stay healthy you would need to remain within that output zone.

Why argue against or mock research this way? It's just an article that points to a scientific study. Are you suggesting those researchers wasted their time studying something you already knew? From a logistics POV, if it bears up, I find it an important component in high intensity, long term expedition/endurance planning.