No, it DIDN'T go all over my head -- whatever that's supposed to mean.

My reference was to the tendency of the book to cast the paleolithic diet
in either/or terms -- which is a characteristic of the way religions view
the world:  a set of hard-and-fast, exclusive truths to be accepted on
faith, along with a leader who determines that faith.

Obviously, a system of beliefs doesn't have to be a religion per se in
order to fit this paradigm.  All you need are (1) people who want a
guaranteed path to some important goal (in the case of religion, Eternal
Life; in the case of a dietary regimin, the assurance that they're either
going to remain healthy or recapture the health they once had); (2)
somebody who is willing to provide a simple-to-understand-and implement
path that he or she believes will lead to that goal.  Possibly I wasn't
clear in my earlier assessment, but that's basically what I was referring
to.

Like in most areas of life, a simplistic either/or approach to food
selection is going to prevent a lot of people from engaging in the ongoing
inquiry so necessary to tailor a dietary lifestyle to their own specific
requirements.  Obviously, there's nothing wrong with adopting aspects of a
recommended diet, even a lot of aspects, that appear to work for you.  But
if I were you, I'd continue to leave the door of inquiry wide open.