He was talking about grains and legumes ... AS USUAL. It's amazing that people are so attached to their goddam BEANS that they create elaborate excuses for exonerating them from their KNOWN shortcomings.
If one can't afford (or can't GET, in certain times and places) animal protein, legumes are the next best thing. BUT....
[sigh] How many times does it have to be repeated??? Preparation means almost EVERYTHING when it comes to healthfully consuming them, and grains too. Some grains and legumes i can eat in small quantities, and cope with better than i can certain green-superfood-vegetables. Eating them in the quick-and-dirty forms in which they're found in most Western diets, though, is a highway to misery. AND they're so high in carbohydrate content, i have to make allowances for their ingestion. I'm willing to make that trade from time to time ... but absolutely NOT, if most other people are doing the cooking.
Antinutrients MUST be disabled or grains and legumes can be deleterious to human health, as compared to animal products. THAT is what "paleo" is all about to me -- realizing that "neolithic" foods have issues connected with them, and making allowances for those problems, either by eschewing them altogether or by going the extra distance to deal with them.
All we have to do, to quickly assess the validity of arguments against any WoE (way of eating), is to watch for hyperbolic expressions like "eliminate a whole food group" or "promotes eating disorders." People INCLINED to eating disorders can develop one in any dietary scheme they choose, whether it be fruitarian, raw, vegetarian, vegan, calorie-restriction, eating-everything-in-moderation ... or paleo. And the fact that "food groups" are illogical philosophical constructs, NOT ACTUAL NUTRITIONAL DEFINITIONS, should discredit the rational faculties of anyone arguing about them.