T Nation

T-Dawg vs. Winning Formula

Hey guys! I’ve heard lots of great things about T-Dawg, but I haven’t heard as much about people’s experiences with WF … I figure this is because it is only a few months old. I’m converting from powerlifting to bodybuilding, so I’m looking to get leaner … a LOT LEANER. I’m 250 at 19-22% BF (that’s the range between my own caliper test and the one at the gym). I’m torn between the faster results I think I will get from T-Dawg and the chance to actually ingest carbs on WF. Any advice?

I have been a huge advocate of “the winning formula” and I would recommend it for anybody who is primarily interested in fat loss.

1. I like the diet (Don't Diet) as it allows for good carbs and I have personally had much more success keeping to it than the T-Dawg.

2. I like the mix of anaerobic and aerobic training as I don't belive cardio is a bad thing.

3. I like his Ian King style push/pull lifting splits.

What I don't like about it is:

A. 7 1/2 hours in the gym a week is just too much for me.

B. He recommends muscle groups but no specific lifts. (I now own a copy of Get Buffed & Weight Training Anatomy and now can design my own routines around his recommendations.)

C. He doesn't recommend reps or sets. (I do it all 5x5.)(Thanks Joel!)

D. His caloric recommendations are way way to high for me. ( I now use LBM x 13)

E. He recommends a 4 day split I prefer Three days

But these are very small things. All in all I think this one article will have an effect on my diet and training for years to come.

KraigY

In your case, I think that the Winning Formula would be a better program for you. In general, I would recommend Joel’s 5x5 training program with the T-Dawg diet, but since you have a thorough base of strength training, you will be better off with a higher volume program like Winning Formula. I think you might be suprised at how fast the fat peels off by slightly limiting cals and cranking up the exercise volume from all angles (strength training, interval training and aerobic training).