I like Richard's post above. Some nice links. I like the emphasis on basics ("Don't worry about timing nutrients or anything like that, you're not Michael Phelps"). I've noticed a lot of the comments/research on nutrition are geared toward performance athletes trying to run faster/lift more weight, etc... Data on how to cut your 100 m sprint or marathon times by 1% may be important to someone trying to win a race, but I don't think they are especially relevant to someone out for a hike (albeit a very long one). Also comments like " For you section hikers, overall diet throughout normal living is more important than dialing macronutrients in for the trail. Optimizing ones diet on the trail is a waste of time, if the bigger picture sucks." are well received. A focus on long-term health rather than athletic performance is a better investment of my energy.

However, I would caution that too much attention paid to protein can lead people down the wrong path. Richard points out that you can make your own carbs (gluconeogenesis). Yes, but you can only do this from protein (not fat), and this is a very inefficient process. This is what we are trying to avoid. One of the cited articles makes reference to people who, when trying to meet a perceived high need for protein, cut out most everything else from the diet. This creates a huge calorie deficit. In fact, you can't survive on only protein.

I like Richards opening overview:

"First and foremost, calorie total is important. The higher it is, the more likely a hiker will be to achieve nitrogen balance. It's near impossible to not get enough protein on a 3,000+ calorie diet."

This is consistent with my opinion that you need to worry more about calories than protein. I do not worry about getting just the right balance of carbs, fats, and protein. For me that is emotional baggage I don't want to carry (my pack is heavy enough, thank you). Eat a balanced diet and be happy.