That just sounds like Calorie counting with extra steps
There's no such prioritization on your body. Everything happens concurrently. It's constantly turning glucose into fat and fat back into glucose. It's constantly breaking down amino acids and reforming them. Different processes will just occur at different rates depending on the concentration of reactants and products. So going from amino acids to glucose happens a lot slower when you have other energy sources, but it still happens.
I also don't see how your comment supports your claim. Even if this prioritization takes place, the protein you consume still serves the purpose of being an energy source. That's very different from being unable to burn amino acids for energy at all as you said earlier.
Considering the meal only has 200 Calories, they certainly need that dressing.
While the facts are correct, the interpretation isn't.
- Protein itself can't be stored. That doesn't mean that the excess is useless. They're converted into glucose, which your body can use directly or store for later as fat or glycogen.
- This process happens in the liver, so if you consume more protein, the liver does more work. The question you should be asking here is whether or not that's a problem. And it isn't, unless you already have liver problems to begin with.
And while it's true that the average person needs very little protein, there's also a large distribution of protein needs even after normalizing for your size/sex, so you can't prescribe a hard number based on this information alone.
These kinds of calculators are useful for getting a starting point for your TDEE, but protein intake is simple enough to do on your own. 1g/lb of body mass is a good time of thumb, and will already overestimate your protein needs in the greater majority of cases. If you want to be extra certain that you're getting enough, you can always eat more. The only negative effect of doing so will be on your wallet.
and a handful of other people that don't understand why their ideas are being acted on
The image this evokes is hilarious
The company exists without the stock market. People will still own portions of that company. The value will just be harder for the general public to determine and can be more easily obfuscated for tax purposes.
It gets tricky when you get paid once and then never get paid again, but the original thing you were paid with (i.e. company stocks) goes up in value over time, effectively replacing wages. Do we count that value increase as well? What if you get paid in cash, you buy something with that cash (could be the same company stocks), and that thing goes up in value? Or you buy another asset that your company has a lot of influence over?
Specialized vs general labour?
My point is, if we care about what we call this, then just pick something and move on to solving the real problem.
"skill" is a gradient, so the label "unskilled" is in itself meaningless.
You know what else is a gradient? Size. Does that make terms like "big" and "small" meaningless? Just about everything in this universe exists on a spectrum.
Maybe specialized vs general labour?
I believe Leafy greens have the lowest Calorie to satiety ratio. It's easier to keep to your Calorie goals if you're not feeling hungry all the time.