That actually reminds me of a fallacy that people commit without realizing it all the time. They start to identify a basic food with the prevalent methods of processing or preparing it. And when it comes to meat they also identify the whole of the meat with specific cuts.
For instance..bacon is "bad" so pork is "bad". But bacon is taken from the fattiest part of the pig. Shouldn't compare a slab of bacon with a lean pork chop. Likewise the smoking of ham, or bacon and the further processing of cold lunch meats. The macronutrients still count for the same there is just more stuff added to it like was said at the onset of this thread.
But I was thinking more of a video I saw where this woman was going over "the worst" foods. I hate these kinds of lists. The first "bad food" on her list was fried catfish. The southerner in me didn't take well to it but she made the mistake of combining her opinion about the fish in general, which was bs, with the cooking method.
She started out by saying that "catfish is bad because of a and b. And then when you fry it you ADD FAT! Aaaaaaagghhh....
But anyway it's two different things. What if she stared the list with grilled catfish...does it now dererves to be further down her list or something? Or better yet...broiled.
In this case, what she said about the fish was general nonsense about it being a "bottom feeder" and so full of toxins and devoid on nutrients. Which is nothing more then a classest statement since of course lobster and all the other bottom feeders that are typically served in 5 star restaurants didn't make it on to her list but the point is that the nutrition in the food still "counts".
Fried lobster, anyone?