It's almost as if the internet's nutrition websites weren't designed for munchkining your diet!

This is because while the field of nutrition is currently at the point where it can prevent serious deficiency (a relatively simple matter of making sure all the important nutrients pass through your guts in sufficient quantity), it's not at the point where it can confidently point to the optimal diet for the average human.

Everyone agrees that fruits and vegetables are generally positive. Everyone agrees that heavily processed foods are generally bad. By the way, Calorie counting is a reasonable path to weight loss and weight gain (though there are other methods) - and everyone agrees that being over/under weight is generally bad. That's about where the agreement ends.

Tackling the harder problems of nutrition would require us to understand more about human metabolism, nutrient absorption, non-nutrient factors like anti-oxidants and anti-inflammatory compounds, natural toxins (never forget that being eaten is not in the genetic interests of most plants), gut flora, immunological function, and things of that sort.

Just to give you a sense of the chaos here: there are nutritionists who make a case that you shouldn't eat beans or lentils at all. These same folks say that while you are at it stop eating grains in general, and make up the calories with animal fat. At the opposite side of the spectrum, there are nutritionists who say that the optimal diet contains almost zero meat (see - china study). All this confusion is before you add in ethical complications about sustainable food and animal rights.

If you both these strands of advice simultaneously and cut out grains, legumes, and animal fat ... at that point you'll have to start to getting rather creative in order to get sufficient calories, and you're probably pretty far off from optimal at this point.

I could take your request and give you a professional nutritionist's dietary recommendations, but the nutritionist I recommend will necessarily conform to my own stance and you'd be foolish to trust anyone on expert opinion when expert opinion is so diverse. From your perspective, my opinion that the optimal strategy is to model your diet off of what humans ate during the paleolithic would constitute a random shot in a space of common schools of thought - I think Paleolithic diets have a relatively high likelihood of being better than almost all diets which became possible post-agriculture, but as far as you're concerned who the hell am I? Nutrition isn't even my primary area of study, and even if it was, taking the recommendation of a random expert is probably worse than taking the recommendation an expert who was recommended by a random non-expert

Anyway, aside from general purpose tools like google scholar, cochrane reviews, etc... http://examine.com is one of the most user-friendly primary source databases I've come across geared specifically to nutrition. Unfortunately, it's mostly about supplements and single nutrients rather than whole foods, and that's largely because we can be more confident when talking about single molecules than we can about entire foods. On a less empirical note, I've got a generally favorable opinion of the blog posts from http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ which clued me in to several things I hadn't considered before (offal & bones, Vitamin K2, etc) and lean on the practical side. If you prefer to listen to people who are prominent in academia, Loren Cordain has a blog http://thepaleodiet.com/ and several influential papers.