Go fast then go long...

i think this view comes from the fact that the easy part is to build base. go long and go easy. they hard part is to build that speed and power while remaining injury free.  if you can do the hard part building the base is only a matter of time.

I don't know at your age.  I'm watching the first graduates of the program we've been involved with and those that want to are pretty easily grabbing pro cards.  Their path was the one you asked about.....speed first...period.  And with that came a big dose of some really good genetics to get the ball rolling.  I'm talking sub 5 minute miles at 13-14 genetics.....along with AA - AAAA swim speed.  Can you back up the clock and build THAT kind of speed?  Those 13-14 year olds are now running sub 4:20 miles at 16-17.  They can breeze a 36-38 minute 10K training run on very few actual run training miles compared to older athletes....and they aren't racing it.  Still, their coaches won't let them race anything longer than a sprint tri, or a 5K.  Jr. has been pulled from his idea of Oly AG Nationals this year, for which he qualified, and put back to the sprint race.....coach basically said he's got more speed to build first.  I'm talking about a kid with a 57 minute sprint PR in a 750/20K/5K race.  Do I think people like him can run a World long course qualifying time at 25-30?  Of course, if they stay healthy.  Do I think you can do it starting at 30, or 35? Maybe.  So yeah, without question the premise is a good one.  I have no idea what the limiters are......but I know it starts with genetics. 

I think there's more than one way to skin a cat. 

I actually do not think for AGers, it's necessarily better to go short/fast first and then go long/slower.

It's just that the reality for most new triathletes is that sprints/olys are eminently doable from off-the couch, whereas HIM and IM are just too long for a first race after 12 weeks of training if you're off the couch. So naturally the newer folks go to the shorter distances.

But when we're talking about 'go fast' like junior development programs, we're talking speeds that most AGers will never achieve, and will likely never achieve even if they had optimal coaching and training. Asking someone with talent to go short/fast by developing to run 15 minute 5ks before going to the HM/marathon is very different than asking an average talent runner to even run 17:xx before going long - that average talent AGer might very well be better served by going long/slow earlier to build more volume and consistency and then getting true speed after that.

I had this very experience as a lousy HS x-country pure runner that plateaud at 20:xx for the next 10 years after that. Even with tons of speedwork, at 30mpw, I could only run 20:xx, and the variation from harder/more speedwork was like 10sec for that 5k. 

Then in my 30s, I decided to just 'go long', and signed up for a full marathon even though I had only run one HM 5 years prior to that, and was only running 25-28 mpw. With the much higher volume demands of marathon training (built up to 70+mpw over 2 years), I crushed all my PRs by a huge margin at all distances, inclduing 2+minutes on the 5k in my very first 5k during serious marathon training. It would have been futile to ask me to run 17:xx on 30mpw no matter what I did, but it was eminently doable on 70+mpw (with speedwork sprinkled in a la Pfitiznger's programs.)

Here's something else to consider bigb......at least from my view as I watch the progression.  The pieces of a fast race are built separately.  A 2 month fast swim focus is done with very moderate to low bike and run miles.  A 3 month fast run focus is done with very moderate to low swim and bike miles.  A fast bike focus can carry higher swim and run mileage, but not close to what the distances were during those focuses.  The fast times in each event keep falling, and then wen put together to build a race none of them are a fast as they were during the focus, but it all becomes relative to a triathlon race.  Jr. is now spending quite a bit of time racing crits and bike TT's.  He came off of a 3 month track season where the focus was all on running fast.  As his bike speed and ability in a pack improves he laments the fact that "I bet I can't even get under 4:30 in a mile right now".....not thinking about the idea that last year 4:30 WAS his fast mile.  As track season progressed at the back end of a swim build that put him with sectional times, he complained that his 500 time was "probably over 5 minutes now"...and forgot that 5:07 WAS his fast 500 last year.  The result is a much faster triathlon race......and as soon as the season ends he will start over.  Maybe next year it will be, "geez, I bet I can't even run a 4:20 mile now that I'm biking so much......and so it goes.  The ONLY time he works on the technical aspects of a race that is swim/bike/run is for the 3 months he is racing them......the other 9 months is about building fast pieces. 

It's really interesting to watch......and actually ends up being much less work/time than you are probably spending trying to concentrate on all three.at once.

There is obviously merit there. 

Somewhere genetics gets thrown into the mix......and at that point I don't know where age becomes a limiter...although it certainly must/does. (coming from someone who used to be pretty fast and no longer is) 

Nobody can do what bigb is asking about without a VERY solid base....so those miles you talk about have to be there to some degree.....again, I'm not sure where it all intersects in what is actually needed, although I'd venture a guess there is a wide variance among all of us.

The only problem I see with the long-first-then-fast approach is that form may need to change along the way in order to get fast.

I see so many people use the excuse of "I'm a long distance X'er" for their bad form (whether it's swim, run, whatever). Okay, but what happens when you want to go fast? That poor form is going to become the limiter in your speed. Changing that form up while trying to maintain the endurance for long-distance racing is a HUGE load of stress on the body that is likely to push it over the edge into injury.

I'm a proponent of the fast-first camp.

Yeah, we're on a similar thought page. I'm not suggesting someone run only 20 miles a week and make 80% of them hard runs. Volume is going to be fairly similar across the board, regardless of event distance. Just what is done within that volume is going to be a bit different. The short distance guy is probably, I'd guess, going to spend more work building VO2 Max, threshold sets, etc whereas the go long camp is probably spending most their time in LSD type stuff. Obviously, the run gets a bit tricky because there still has to be a balance of easy to limit injury but I'd suspect a lot more intensity in the bike (especially) and the swim.