There is still zero evidence by way of studies to support the contention that one type of training creates different hypertrophy to another - i.e. no proof of myofibrillar vs sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Generally speaking, both effects will occur when the load stimulus is sufficient. Is it likely that one is favoured by way of ratio over the other? I would say so.
I think this is an interesting thread but I got lost in the middle. It was said going to failure is needed, to achieve muscle growth. How are you going to go to failure when hst has you starting at 75% of your respective rm's?
This is easily solved by doing as many sets as are necessary to get closer to failure because of the accumulating fatigue. Or you can simply rep out in the single working set you do. I myself have no patience to do several half-assed sets and prefer doing only one all-out set, not necessarily until failure in the strictest sense, but damn close to that (slowest rep of'em all).
A little late, but here is a good article by Dan Moore about this subject: http://www.weightrainer.net/physiology/Moore_Sarcoplasmic.html Basically, rep range doesn't really matter when it comes to myo vs sarco.
Hey some current discussion on here, interesting thread, just popped in to see if you guys were still around!
