The Myth of Djokovic's Gluten Free Diet

First topic message reminder :

Gluten free Diet got its heroic status once Djoko started his unbeaten run in 2011, fans all over the world claimed Gluten-free as Nole spinach to success, but how exactly did Gluten Free diet helped him out? and would it have worked wonders for every player to try it? I personally doubt it.

I met my friend who graduated from University of Toronto [a Medical student] to discuss about this gluten free diet myth and see how successful this forumula could be on me, but to my surprise my friend laughed at me, he said firstly I am vegetarian and secondly Gluten is very good for health as the contain essential protein and vitamin blocks necessary for the body, and gluten diet is inbred in most vegetarian diets, so he questioned me why should I consider this formula of gluten free when gluten is actually good for my body. However he put an argument citing .Celiac disease, gluten free would help all those who have this danger associated with the body but outside that gluten he confirmed helps body to perform at its best as it acts as energy cells.

So how exactly Gluten free diet helped Djoko? we all know he suffered with some respiratory issues early on his career, but I don't think that's anywhere related to Celiac disease, so how exactly it helped Djoko enhance his performance, is this just a myth that the gluten free diet played a big role in improvement of Djoko's performance? or did Nole's team used it as a secret technique to divert media and fans attention on something which didn't need much attention and hence his secret to sudden rise still remain mystery? or did it really played a pivotol role in enhancing Nole's performance if so do anybody have a clue how it played its part?

I personally think Nole's team was smart enough to divert the attention on gluten-free diet and hence his sudden metoric rise secret still remain as secret and hence he could use it as an advantage till the myth is out

Gluten, for people who can handle it and not have allergic reactions to it, is a very significant diet ingredient.

Gluten intolerance (not just Coeliac disease) can be very problematic for people who have it.

Why? “The prevailing theory is the hygiene hypothesis,” Guandalini says. Because of our ultra-clean environments, children aren’t exposed adequately to antigens in the environment while their immune systems are developing. If the gut has not been taught to deal with antigens properly, the immune system responds toward gluten with intolerance. In contrast, celiac disease is rare in less sanitary, developing countries, Guandalini says.

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/celiac-disease/features/gluten-intolerance-against-grain?page=2

Such scenarios can lead to tertiary allergies and immune system issues. Fatigue becomes an issue for people who suffer from allergies, not just gluten, but others, (like pollen, dust, etc).

Did a GFD help Djokovic? It probably did.

Is it solely responsible for his success? Very unlikely.

JuliusHMarx wrote:At no point did IC mention PEDs or suggest that Djoko was on them.
HB you are free to interpret IC's comments as you like, but there is no 'clear insinuation" IMO and you state "you probably shouldn't say that" when nothing was said.

Julius the insinuation of secret technique and so on is a clear insinuation and frankly is bordering on libellous and slanderous. Apparently this kind of behavior is ok with the management of this site but pointing out the obvious facts that some one who lies is a liar brings out the censorship pen. So slanderous lies coming from an individual should be deemed something other than what they are so as to not hurt said person's feelings?

The fact of the matter is that this individual in question has already been exposed as a Djoko hating and virulently dishonest to his very core. If this person told me that water was wet I would take a sip to make sure.


Here are the facts about the man's record and if you are reading this I guess it is ok sometimes to repeat the truth on this site even if it hurts someone peddling in deceit and their feelings:

-Invisible Cooler does the thread that Djoko cheated Del po

-he claimed that it could have changed the outcome or the momentum.

-in actuality Djoko lost the point, and lost the game so it had no impact on the match despite the untruths stating otherwise.

-Also it isn't cheating because it isn't his call to make it is the umpire's, you can't cheat someone if you have no power

-Here is where invisible exposes that he has no idea and understanding about the most basic concepts of tennis match play. When running at a full sprint it is absolutely possible and happens quite often where the guy running at the ball doesn't know if it bounced twice if it is a close call. If you have played tennis you would know that the person who has the best view of the call is your opponent and not you a lot of the times.

So IC you have been exposed in claiming that Djokovic cheated, not a single poster no matter how much they disliked me or Djoko would agree with your idiotic and most importantly dishonest argument.

I guess it is ok to call one who bakes a baker. Or to call one who welds a welder, funny what should I call someone exposed in obvious and knowing misrepresentations. I am at a loss I know the English language has a word for it somewhere?

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:At no point did IC mention PEDs or suggest that Djoko was on them.
HB you are free to interpret IC's comments as you like, but there is no 'clear insinuation" IMO and you state "you probably shouldn't say that" when nothing was said.

Julius the insinuation of secret technique and so on is a clear insinuation and frankly is bordering on libellous and slanderous. Apparently this kind of behavior is ok with the management of this site but pointing out the obvious facts that some one who lies is a liar brings out the censorship pen. So slanderous lies coming from an individual should be deemed something other than what they are so as to not hurt said person's feelings?

Slanderous lies should of course be reported - no-one reported it, therefore it's a safe assumption that no-one thought there were any slanderous lies.
Perhaps you could quote the slanderous lies directly, if you can find any.

Like calling a man a cheater with no conceivable honest argument, if some one called you a cheat in your profession on trumped up charges tell me Julius what would you consider that, slanderos maybe?

Now one could argue that you are a terrible moderator with the judgement of Arsenal's second string keeper, I wouldn't make that argument, but this is not libellous. Calling a man a cheat on bs charges is libellous, especially when the case made is so laughable it wouldn't fool an Alabama republican.

socal1976 wrote:Like calling a man a cheater with no conceivable honest argument, if some one called you a cheat in your profession on trumped up charges tell me Julius what would you consider that, slanderos maybe?

I think you're mistaking this forum for real life.

socal1976 wrote:Now one could argue that you are a terrible moderator with the judgement of Arsenal's second string keeper, I wouldn't make that argument, but this is not libellous. Calling a man a cheat on bs charges is libellous, especially when the case made is so laughable it wouldn't fool an Alabama republican.

So you reported the post so that the Admins could make the decision - thank you.

I am just going to start calling you the Mannone of moderating world.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Now one could argue that you are a terrible moderator with the judgement of Arsenal's second string keeper, I wouldn't make that argument, but this is not libellous. Calling a man a cheat on bs charges is libellous, especially when the case made is so laughable it wouldn't fool an Alabama republican.

So you reported the post so that the Admins could make the decision - thank you.

No I didn't, why would I do that. When someone is setting fire to their own credibility and is too dense to figure it out why would I stop them? Besides last time I reported abuse to the admins of this site they deleted the racial abuse in question and then I was banned because I referenced said poster with their own abusive conduct. I was mean to the racial abuser and then I got banned, so why would that make me want to report IC.

Besides I can't do your job for you. If you can't discern that calling a man a cheat on your site without even a prima facie or colorable argument is problematic that is up to you, not up to me.

socal1976 wrote:I am just going to start calling you the Mannone of moderating world.

Oh please don't, I don't think I could bear it.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
So how exactly Gluten free diet helped Djoko? we all know he suffered with some respiratory issues early on his career, but I don't think that's anywhere related to Celiac disease

Oh dear dear me.
Another ridiculous poorly researched article.
A week later after accusing Djokovic of winning a point he actually lost, you now say his gluten-free diet is not helpful as he 'suffered from some respiratory issues early on in his career' but it's not 'anywhere related to Celiac Disease.'
Oh dear.
http://tennisconnected.com/home/2011/04/27/djokovic-attributes-celiac-disease-to-new-found-form/
http://www.celiac.com/articles/22827/1/Australian-Open-2012-Has-a-Gluten-free-Diet-Made-Novak-Djokovic-Tennis-New-Alpha-Male/Page1.html
http://www.glutafin.co.uk/blog/article/will-wimbledon-help-raise-the-profile-of-coeliac-disease

Now one could imply that the whole 'celiac disease' in itself is a cover-up; but that would be a totally different accusation.
What you're saying is fundamentally different- that 'we all know he suffered with some respiratory issues early on his career, but I don't think that's anywhere related to Celiac disease'.

IMBL terrific work again, I mean you break it down with citations how this individual is running rampant on this site with dishonest conduct. We once had a guy on this site who could tell you the exact chemichal cocktail Nadal was ingesting from behind his keyboard. Now we have the wonders of the Canadian education system which has taught our friend to diagnose Djokovic's having a disease or not from behind his computer. I take it as a compliment to my favorite player frankly. When a player reaches the status of having a cadre of illogical haters he has made it. In 2009 or 2010 nobody was talking about Djokovic. Now all of sudden we have people diagnosing his diseases from the comfort of their homes. You are nice enough to chalk up these wild accusations to poor research, I think the real reason is actually much more sinister and ugly, it is just a smear campaign done partially to get my attention.

In short InvisibleCooler is now Novak Djokovic's LION.

socal1976 wrote:Now we have the wonders of the Canadian education system which has taught our friend to diagnose Djokovic's having a disease or not from behind his computer.

Apart from the outrageous smear of the Canadian eduction system - I'll be firing off a letter to the Toronto Star about that, you can be sure - the irony is that it was diagnosed by a guy from watching Djoko on TV.

I wouldn't be so fast to call peoples accusations libellous when this sort of thing is on record

https://www.606v2.com/t6328-how-will-the-end-of-djoko-s-streak-affect-his-play

Despite the token "if"s, there's enough inferences in there to keep a gang of ambulance chasers in work for a few months, I particularly like the judgement of Foggy as a "dirtball" at 5:41.


Why not just let people have their opinion and ignore or argue it? I'm sure Djokovic can take care of himself.

By all means julius continue to laugh off this guys conduct, I don't find it funny. Your skills as a moderator are funny, if you were the judge in a court case you could end up jailing the prosecuting attorney and jurors and then letting the defendant go. As I have said before, the more you start agreeing with me the higher your chances of being right Julius. It is all that extra thinking that you do that throws you off.

On a serious note his charges and insinuations in the last couple of threads have been beyond laughable. I am not reporting anyone lets make that clear, by all means I am all for having everyone's record honestly reflected. If you call the man a cheat with an absolutely laughable case then people should be free to read it. It reflects poorly on the person making the thread and means absolutely nothing to Djokovic that is the only reason I highlight it.

bogbrush wrote:I wouldn't be so fast to call peoples accusations libellous when this sort of thing is on record

https://www.606v2.com/t6328-how-will-the-end-of-djoko-s-streak-affect-his-play

Despite the token "if"s, there's enough inferences in there to keep a gang of ambulance chasers in work for a few months, I particularly like the judgement of Foggy as a "dirtball" at 5:41.

That is your opinion you are entitled to it, I don't share it. As i said I am not reporting anyone for anything. I just don't have any idea why my comments pointing out a posters dishonesty in debate as I see it should have been erased by Julius. Why is it not ok for me to voice my opinion on the veracity of an individual if I think they re bs ing?

I think you can express your opion, of course you can. I'd just leave out all the libel stuff, especially when I don't think anyone has made such a statement (the forum has to take care of itself on that front).

bogbrush wrote:I think you can express your opion, of course you can. I'd just leave out all the libel stuff, especially when I don't think anyone has made such a statement (the forum has to take care of itself on that front).

Frankly I don't care about whether something is libel or slander or what you want to call it. I care about whether an argument is honest debate or if it is a lie. If I believe someone is lying, and when they post that laughable of an argument on Novak cheating Del Po that is precisely what they are doing, then i feel it incumbent to say so. I don't get hung up or care at all about the legalistic definition as much as the fact that I don't think someone is being honest.

JuliusHMarx wrote:At no point did IC mention PEDs or suggest that Djoko was on them.
HB you are free to interpret IC's comments as you like, but there is no 'clear insinuation" IMO and you state "you probably shouldn't say that" when nothing was said.

Thank heavens for common sense!!!! A player may choose not to share his new training regime, the latest pilates exercise, or whether he is using one of those Madonna favoured machines which help strengthen the core or IC could have been posing a question over whether the egg chamber should have been allowed or whether some super new supplement was the key to increased confidence etc. What is wrong with that so far.

At no point did IC insinuate that illegal drugs may be behind the success of 2011 - some of you however took enormous speculative and judgemental leaps in assuming something that wasn't said, was!!! It's the old Mary Whitehouse complex again - you know which button to press to lodge your outraged objections


Who was it who said 'I've no wish to make a window into mens' souls'? I'm surprised that you, as a lawyer, socal don't get that.

For what it's worth I thought IC was referring to drugs as well. It wasn't reported of course because it's ambiguous so it won't land the site in trouble.

The way it's been talked about as some mysterious secret though gives the impression it's something dodgy, hence why I thought it was some sly reference to enhancers, I'd like to know what IC thinks is really behind his rapid improvement... apart from the obvious a little bit of everything... bit more belief, bit more confidence... bit better diet for his allergy... bit better serve etc. Plus he only got better and better as his long streak went on... to the point that by his Sf loss in the French,

"he was unrecognizable from the solid, but flakey player he could be before". Gonna edit this.... it's an oxymoron, he had a solid actual tennis game, but his mind got flakey now and then

Either way neither side should be trying to make the other out as wrong, I can see how it could be taken both ways

So what? I can't see a problem with anyone saying something carefully.

I think in principle people get very upset about things they dislike being said, not necessarily what they see as being wrong.

I agree with that logic

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Now one could argue that you are a terrible moderator with the judgement of Arsenal's second string keeper, I wouldn't make that argument, but this is not libellous. Calling a man a cheat on bs charges is libellous, especially when the case made is so laughable it wouldn't fool an Alabama republican.

So you reported the post so that the Admins could make the decision - thank you.

No I didn't, why would I do that. When someone is setting fire to their own credibility and is too dense to figure it out why would I stop them? Besides last time I reported abuse to the admins of this site they deleted the racial abuse in question and then I was banned because I referenced said poster with their own abusive conduct. I was mean to the racial abuser and then I got banned, so why would that make me want to report IC.

Besides I can't do your job for you. If you can't discern that calling a man a cheat on your site without even a prima facie or colorable argument is problematic that is up to you, not up to me.

Thankfully you understand what you doing, between do you come to this forum with a motto of jumping on everyone rather than discussing the topic? I never used the word PED or for the case anything related with drugs, if you are your friends cannot read the article properly why not stay away from it rather than making yourself looking ridiculous with the comments you guys are posting.

falzy21 wrote:For what it's worth I thought IC was referring to drugs as well. It wasn't reported of course because it's ambiguous so it won't land the site in trouble.

The way it's been talked about as some mysterious secret though gives the impression it's something dodgy, hence why I thought it was some sly reference to enhancers, I'd like to know what IC thinks is really behind his rapid improvement... apart from the obvious a little bit of everything... bit more belief, bit more confidence... bit better diet for his allergy... bit better serve etc. Plus he only got better and better as his long streak went on... to the point that by his Sf loss in the French,

"he was unrecognizable from the solid, but flakey player he could be before". Gonna edit this.... it's an oxymoron, he had a solid actual tennis game, but his mind got flakey now and then

Either way neither side should be trying to make the other out as wrong, I can see how it could be taken both ways

Every player have a technique, Nadal had a secret technique on how to play Federer, it was secret coz nobody else knew how to play Federer before, now every body knows whats weakness Fed has and hence its no more a secret, but it still a secret on how Nadal can execute to perfection compared to others.

Ferrer's stamina is great, its a secret on how he maintains this high stamina running into mid 30's, this doesn't mean he is cheating, its just that he is doing something special in terms of technique or practice or whatever that keeps him more energised even on longer matches.

Its still a secret how Fed alone can have this many shots and variety in addition to fitness , people call it a pure talent, it could be pure talent or it could be a secret of hardwork behind it.

Similarly some part of Nole's success was equated to Gluten-free diet by media and fans, but it may not be the actual reason, the actual secret could be his hardwork behind scene, or his team creating a new game play or whatever, I have explained this in a reply before.

Secret is not wrong, everybody carry secrets, I don't see Secret word being defined as negative anywhere in English grammer.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
So how exactly Gluten free diet helped Djoko? we all know he suffered with some respiratory issues early on his career, but I don't think that's anywhere related to Celiac disease

Oh dear dear me.
Another ridiculous poorly researched article.
A week later after accusing Djokovic of winning a point he actually lost, you now say his gluten-free diet is not helpful as he 'suffered from some respiratory issues early on in his career' but it's not 'anywhere related to Celiac Disease.'
Oh dear.
http://tennisconnected.com/home/2011/04/27/djokovic-attributes-celiac-disease-to-new-found-form/
http://www.celiac.com/articles/22827/1/Australian-Open-2012-Has-a-Gluten-free-Diet-Made-Novak-Djokovic-Tennis-New-Alpha-Male/Page1.html
http://www.glutafin.co.uk/blog/article/will-wimbledon-help-raise-the-profile-of-coeliac-disease

Now one could imply that the whole 'celiac disease' in itself is a cover-up; but that would be a totally different accusation.
What you're saying is fundamentally different- that 'we all know he suffered with some respiratory issues early on his career, but I don't think that's anywhere related to Celiac disease'.

Pathetic once again IMBL,

First of all this is not a researched work, this is a discussion thread, shame you can't figure it out as usual .

Secondly I never said Nole didn't have Celiac disease, I just said I know he had respiratory issues and I don't think thats related to Celiac,

Last but not least I never said Celiac disease is cover up, I explained clearly I have no clue he had it or not and that not.

So once again you failed and its easy for us to prove you wrong, but don't worry as usual your friend is happy about your post.

Caeliac disease and asthma have been proved to be linked - caeliac's have 60% greater chance of asthma. Djokovic likely had both, one probably exacerbated the other. Once he cut out gluten this damped down the respiratory problems too. Caeliac's suffer from cramping and fatigue...fatigue was something that hindered Djokovic in matches before the diet change. The biggest difference now is that being free of these issues has seemingly inspired Djokovic to dedicate himself to new heights, maybe he just couldn't do that before. It is still remarkable how he transformed himself but if he's PED-free and been able to outlast Nadal physically then we should assume Nadal's PED-free too.

lydian wrote:Caeliac disease and asthma have been proved to be linked - caeliac's have 60% greater chance of asthma. Djokovic likely had both, one probably exacerbated the other. Once he cut out gluten this damped down the respiratory problems too. Caeliac's suffer from cramping and fatigue...fatigue was something that hindered Djokovic in matches before the diet change. The biggest difference now is that being free of these issues has seemingly inspired Djokovic to dedicate himself to new heights, maybe he just couldn't do that before. It is still remarkable how he transformed himself but if he's PED-free and been able to outlast Nadal physically then we should assume Nadal's PED-free too.

Great post Lyd , nice to know somebody clarify the relations btw Celiac and respiratory issues, so GFD helped Djoko but certainly not a guide for everybody to follow coz people may not have Celiac.

Regarding PED free, I guess we can leave it for another day and another thread, already some crazy fans mow us out for any simple thread.

Ok so julius is going to erase every post now in which I tell the truth about the veracity of certain poster. The censorship is too much. My posts get deleted over and over again completely unfairly. Why are you deleting all of my posts they are in no way in violation of any of the rules. This is BS julius

Some critics of this site on other websites are right about the censorship and mind control imposed here. I can't tell the truth here anymore what is the damn point of it all. I mean editting out words like Craap and tiit, and now it is illegal to point out someone is lying.

Socal - please see my PM and converse via PM's rather than derail the thread.

Depends on the secret IC, secret can imply some edge you don't want people to know to stay ahead... Or something you don't want people to find out because they're bad.
There have been plenty of bad secrets, as well as good ones.
I don't mind things being secretive but I see no problem with someone having an interpretation not of your own if it's not entirely clear what you meant.

if he's PED-free and been able to outlast Nadal physically then we should assume Nadal's PED-free too.
______________

Don't agree with that Lydian. It might strengthen the case for Nadal PED free but hardly a clincher. "Total" fitness or physical stamina could be based on a combination of things including diet, amount of training, supplements (illegal or not), mental strength to force the body to keep going, natural athleticism, and surely others. Because one player's "total fitness" agrregated from the above factors is above another player, it does not follow that he must also be ahead in each of the individual contributing parts. One player could be using more PED to compensate for less natural physique, or something.

Also, it does not absolutely follow that because Djokovic generally was beating Nadal he must be fitter. He could be slightly less fit but slightly better shotmaker.

In short, you draw a conclusion that cannot be drawn because you have not isolated a ton of other variables.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Now we have the wonders of the Canadian education system which has taught our friend to diagnose Djokovic's having a disease or not from behind his computer.

Apart from the outrageous smear of the Canadian eduction system - I'll be firing off a letter to the Toronto Star about that, you can be sure - the irony is that it was diagnosed by a guy from watching Djoko on TV.

That too by a split personality of mine, coz I had no clue I diagnosed him when I was at work

falzy21 wrote:Depends on the secret IC, secret can imply some edge you don't want people to know to stay ahead... Or something you don't want people to find out because they're bad.
There have been plenty of bad secrets, as well as good ones.
I don't mind things being secretive but I see no problem with someone having an interpretation not of your own if it's not entirely clear what you meant.

If its not clear what I meant the best option is to post a reply questioning for a clarification, but some jokers [not you] have rather jumped on the article without seeking any clarification. To add more in one of my replay I have already mentioned that, and that reply was posted before you even posted a reply to my thread.

socal1976 wrote:Some critics of this site on other websites are right about the censorship and mind control imposed here. I can't tell the truth here anymore what is the damn point of it all. I mean editting out words like Craap and tiit, and now it is illegal to point out someone is lying.

Socal frankly speaking you are starting to bore us all and spoiled a great thread for discussion, it would be wise to report my post to mods/Admins here if you find it aggressive or abusive, pouring your frustrations should not come at the expense of irritating fellow members.