What's the deal with protein?

I'm a fairly avid hiker. My dad took me on my first camping trip when I was only a few months old. My first backpacking trip was when I was three. And I even carried my own backpack. While growing up, my dad and brothers and I went backpacking in the Sierra Nevada. Last year I hiked to the top of Mt. Whitney, the tallest mountain in the lower 48 states. Just last weekend I hiked Mt. Nebo, the tallest in the Wasatch front, and will be reaching the summit of Kings Peak, the tallest in Utah later this summer. Through all of my hiking and talking with others about it, I tend to hear something that confuses me quite a bit. It has to do with protein. "Be sure to bring lots of protein."

 

UPDATE:

Thanks for the responses from Claire, Rebekah, Kurt, and Marie. Here's more explanation on why I was confused about using protein during endurance activities – namely that it actually isn't a good energy source.

When being right, isn't.

Neil deGrasse Tyson shares that 57% of senate and 38% of the House cite law as their profession. He then explains why this is not the ideal foundation on which to build our laws and government.

"When you look at law, and what happens in the courtroom, it doesn't go to what's right, it goes to who argues best. The entire profession is founded on who the best arguers are. For example in debating teams, you know the subject but you don't even know which side of the argument you will be put on to argue.
"So the act of arguing, and not agreeing, seems to be fundamental to that profession, and congress is half that profession."

I completely agree. Winning an argument does not mean you are right. This is just one of many reasons why I dislike politics and feel our government comprises inappropriate representation. Tyson asks, "Where are the scientists? Where are the engineers? Where is the rest of life represented?"

Unfortunately, this widely accepted premise that the winner of an argument is right, has often caused me personal grief. I'm horrible at arguing my point, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Many of my friends are very good at arguing, especially my little brother. What's most frustrating is that hours later I see the flaws and limitations of their arguments and realize that their success was largely due to their strong personality and ability to instill doubt with carefully crafted words. But that doesn't make them right.
Often, I am equally as impassioned and full of conviction, though I don't have the skill of convincing others of my ideas with argument. All too frequently, this is also the case with the people behind movements of great importance, and truth.

How do we differentiate between what is right and true, rather than what is only temporarily convincing?
How can we encourage rational thinking and examination of fact over emotion?
Or do those of us with poor argument skills simply need to learn to play the game?

Old Testament Neo-Evolution

I ponder a lot on the balance between science and religion. I used to accept creationism unconditionally, until I started thinking about it more closely. I now find the evidence for biological evolution to be overwhelming, yet I am always curious to find information that reconciles the two ideas.
I was watching this wonderful TED Talk (that phrase is quite redundant) in which Harvey Fineberg makes a case for the idea that not only did we evolve, but we continue to evolve, and, given enough time, will begin to see some interesting adaptations (but don't hold your breath – evolution takes thousands of years) or may guide our own evolution through medical advancements. Not only was I impressed by his gorgeous, HD slides (sans bullet points), but also very excited because, while I've often considered this neo-evolution and its implications on health and wellness, I hadn't yet considered one of his mind stretching hypotheses which seems to coincide with a fundamental teaching of Christianity.
From a biological perspective, the sole purpose of an organism is to pass on its genetic code. Primordial, single cell organisms did this asexually – by splitting themselves in two and reusing the same materials. Larger organisms, such as humans, do this sexually (yippee!) by combining two separate cells and their genetic code – a lesson in the discipline of negotiation and compromise. The important concept, which he introduces at around 7 minutes, is that along with sexual reproduction comes the expendability of the rest of the body. To put it more precisely, "You could say, that the inevitability of the death of our bodies enters in evolutionary time at the same moment of sexual reproduction."

Doesn't this sound familiar?

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." – Genesis 2:17
"God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." – Genesis 1:28

Now, I understand that most modern religions discard the teaching that the 'fruit' which Adam and Eve partook of was sex, but the two are, nevertheless, closely correlated. Only after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit did they bear children, and "Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death." Fineberg's assertion is an uncanny paraphrase of Old Testament scripture!

I still feel that there are numerous discrepancies between scripture and the theories of Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution. Even so, I found this to be an enticing overlap of science and religion. Watch the video yourself and tell me what you think.