If this gets any more moribund, I may follow Aaron to never-never land.
Fully recognizing the risk, I offer the following for discussion:

        I see two premises underlying the 10 Commandments of Neanderthin: (1)
that humans have not evolved sufficiently to thrive on an agricultural,
and especially technological, diet; and (2) that because we haven't so
evolved, many of the foods in the modern Western diet are not only
lacking in nutritional benefit, but nutritionally dangerous.  IMHO, it
is the second of these premises that is key in determining a healthy
diet.

        Thus, I don't eat wheat *because* wheat has a foreign protein -- gluten
-- which provokes adverse effects in my body.  Wheat produces those
adverse effects *because* my body has not evolved to handle that sort of
food.  It is *not* the case, however, that I don't eat wheat *because*
my ancient forebearers did not eat wheat.

        With this view, in choosing the foods to include in my diet, I look
first to (1) whether that food is nutritionally beneficial; and (2)
whether there are any adverse nutritional effects associated with the
consumption of that food.  Often times, of course, those questions are
being my ability to answer intelligently, and so I fall back on:  Was
this conceivably a part of the ancient hunter-gather diet upon which my
species evolved.

        It seems to me that Ray, in his book, implicitly endorses this view by
his own use of technology.  For example, his use of olive oil to make
mayonnaise results in a food that no hunter-gather would have eaten, but
which is nutritionally beneficial without other, adverse, nutritional
consequences.

        Am I off base here?  Seems to me we'd have to be Luddites to take the
opposite view.  If I'm not off base, then that brings up two questions
(see following posts)