Hey, so I have the book called Pratical Programming by Rippetoe and Kilgore, and had finished reading most of it two weeks ago. In the beginning part of the book, there is a figure on the repetition continuum that shows the different rep schemes that result in different anatomical adaptations.
What I don't understand is is why Rippetoe and Kilgore suggest in the figure that you can build more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy within a given rep range compared to another rep range?
Also, why does it show the same thing with myofibrillar hypertrophy too, where one rep range will build more myofibrillar hypertrophy within a given rep range compared to another rep range? I asked this because while I thought that Rippetoe and Kilgore were supposed to be two of the best strength training experts out there, people like Prof X, Bill Roberts, and Sentoguy have agreed on the TNation forum that there has been no such legitimate proof out there that substantiates as to being able to build more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy than myofibrillar hypertrophy or vice versa.
So, what's going on here? Furthermore, if Rippetoe and Kilgore have been wrong about that idea, then does this mean that I shouldn't ever listen to what those guys have said with regard to any strength training advice, lessons, programming, etc.?