Long or Fast that is the question.

I'm sure everyone does at some point.  That's why athletes specialize.

My thoughts on what you could do:   You never know what you're good at, or interested in until you try.  So I would definitely try to train for the longer distances.  The added benefit of that training is that it will definitely make your short course times better as well.

So I'd say go for it, and if you decide that those distances aren't for you, then you've learned something, and the time isn't wasted as it will directly contribute to your chosen distance. 

I think if I were training to try to place in sprints I would be training as many hours as I have been for my HIM this weekend, which is the same amount of time you have available for training.  I'm no doctor, but I also don't know that an all out intense sprint effort is going to be any better for your knee than doing longer distance races.

As a side note, I know if I were to do a sprint right now I'd be pretty fast compared to my sprint time from last year.  Except for a small portion of your training leading up to a race (8-12 weeks) does your training really have to be that different based on long vs. short?  Obviously I'm not including the 13-17 hour peak weeks some plans call for when IM training in the previous question.

For me, I'd love to do an Ironman once. I'd like to place in sprints and maybe Olys as long as I can imagine. So if I had any possibility of the training time now, I would increase my distances as much as I could, stretch to finish an Ironman, and then start focusing on speed in shorter races. 

As it is I train as much as I can and will jump a distance a year until my training time doesn't allow it. That leaves Ironman as a goal later in life.

My coach has me doing both long workouts each week and speed workouts (when healthy) each week in s/b/r.

This year I'm doing a HIM and the plan is to do IM next year. My training during the week will be similar type and length to how it has been last two years....last year I did Oly's as longest....the main difference is that my long stuff will be longer. Plus I will be fitter so things will have evolved from that as well.

I think as you go longer distance athletes in general are fitter and it becomes more competitive. But you never know until you try what distance really appeals to you.

To a certain extent you will not make as many gains in speed when training for longer events, but you still can improve...or that is what I was told. 

Joe - you're going long AND fast.  Freak.  I mean that in a good way. 

I'm not sure if this is the answer you were looking for, but FOR ME, I had to make the same decision. After a couple of years doing sprints and being in an AG that has 100+ athletes in every local race, I decided that I will never be competitive. If I was going to spend 15 hours/ week training to go fast, why not train to go far. I know they are not mutually exclusive, but you get the point.

Now, after a couple of years of doing IM's, I am at the same crossroads. I volunteer at the local sprints and can't ever see me training dozens of hours/week for a race that will take me an hour to finish. I also have a hard time training for 6+ months/ year, plus spending thousands on travel, race entries, etc. only to knock what, 30 minutes off of my last time? At what point would it be worth it to spend that much time training? Kona qualify? Top 1/2 in AG? I dunno.

So I have decided to go longer.

My path is probably not the path that anyone else would take, but it feels right to me. Who knows maybe I will podium at my next Deca Iron race

In the professional triathlon world, the difference in training time between the short course athletes (oly. and lower) and the long course athletes (HIM and longer) is pretty much none ..... the difference lies in the type of training they do.  They all still do 20 - 40 hours a week.

The "best" distance for still being able to go fast but take advantage of endurance is the HIM.  An oly. is still pretty much about being able to push at or above your LT for the majority of the race.  I personally would not classify an oly. as "long."

I have a personal philosophy on this, though I haven't gotten a chance try it out.  After my first season with 2 sprints 2 years ago, I realized, I'm very slow.  Even my "fast" will probably always be most people's moderate.  As much as I wanted to start training for an Oly, I decided that I need to get to my own personal level of "fast" for each distance before I move on to the next.  I just wouldn't be satisfied with myself if I moved up and was still pedaling my bike avg. 14 mph. And running 11 min miles during a sprint. 

 
The reason I say I haven't gotten to try my philosophy out is that immediately after my last sprint 2 years ago I became injured unrelated to tri's and I'm just now starting all over again from square 1.  But I think I'm still going to stick with sprints until I feel that I'm doing them the best I can.  I'd eventually like to move up to HIM's as I attain my personal best for each distance, but I'm not putting time limits on getting there.  I figure I've got 40 years to move up and by that time there will be so few in my 60-70 age group that I'll win it!

I've thinking this too...i've been fairly successfull this season, so far, my first full season. I want to go long, just for the challange, but i think i will probably be better at sprints because i think i have fast twitch muscles. My goals are a oly this year (1 week from tomarrow), full marathon in early 2008, HIM in 2008, with an ultimate goal of IM in 2009 or 2010 (wow, did i just say 2010? And it's only 2 1/2 years away!)

I think as triathletes many of us have that unstoppable, perfectionist attitude that makes us want to go long, even if it's just for the challange.