I'd say I disagree with the way he's argued a few of the points.
We might have a pretty good idea of how our ancestors ate, but not a good enough idea to say that all people would be better off if they avoided grains, legumes, and dairy completely.
By ignoring ancestral diets, we would greatly increase the phytate:[mineral] molar ratio during digestion and be less well-nourished as a result. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0308814694901090 It would take a long time before we showed outward signs of this malnutrition. Similarly, we could slowly develop compromised-/autoimmune, or nutrient malabsorption issues as a result of, for example, gluten ingestion without ever having any perceptible GI issues. I can stop eating gluten altogether for months and then eat a loaf of bread without any gut issues but I have no idea what sort of damaging effects it's having. In some ways this is a lot worse than an obvious reaction.
One well-studied phenomenon is the pattern of lactose tolerance. Most mammals lose the enzyme necessary to break down the sugar in milk as they grow up, but there is a minority of humans that still produce this enzyme their entire life and are able to consume dairy with no major issues.
Lactase persistence is a fairly minor evolutionary adaptation. Lactase itself goes back not only though hominin evolution but deep into mammalian evolution. We're talking tens of millions of years. All that some of us have lost is the off-switch. It's a gold medal, Carl Lewis leap to then say that means we can eat most grains with no ill effects. Show me a population of humans with glutenase or phytase in their villi alongside lactase and then you'll have an argument. Hell, show me a single human with those adaptations and I'll stand bare-headed in awe of you with a single tear traversing my cheek.
Similarly, just because we didn’t eat frozen pizza, microwave mac and cheese, and White Castle burgers during our evolution doesn’t mean they are inherently unhealthy to us!
Yeah but their high toxin:nutrient ratio means that they are inherently unhealthy to us. Few "natural" foods have so high a toxin load coupled with so low of a nutrient load. The pervading argument throughout these seems to be that grains probably aren't that bad, but few grains have much in the way of bioavailable nutrients. They're usually toxic forms of starch for which we have better alternatives.
In the late 90′s and early 00′s, the Paleo diet was a low-carb, low-fat, and high-protein diet. This has been lovingly labeled the “Faileo” diet by many today due to the incredible difficulty of eating little more than salads and chicken breasts (not to mention the silliness of thinking that our ancestors actually ate like this.)
As it turns out, that's a highly effective fat loss diet, especially if lean steaks are used in lieu of chicken. Our ancestors didn't eat like this, but then again, they weren't trying to lose body fat. When the fat is lost, adjustments are made to halt the progress and maintain weight.
You should always try things out for yourself–for at least 28 days–to give yourself the best idea of what you should and shouldn’t do in regards to your health and fitness.
It's far more efficient to learn from the mistakes of others than to insist upon making them yourself.