Sarco. vs Myo. Hypertrophy Debate

which is easier to get and subsequently easier to lose? I dont think theres any research that bothers with this but I get the feeling that sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is both easier to get and easier to lose. …

this is hardly science but when Id do a cut after bulking with primarily high rep (8-12) exercises Id notice a lot more size loss than with cutting after a bulk using more strength orientated rep schemes (1-6)

also I wanted to know if anyone thinks theres a point where in order to get bigger you kinda have to resort to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy to add more size? say for a muscle group like the biceps (where you really dont need to be able to curl x times body weight) would it make more sense to use higher reps with more sets to get size after a baseline of strength has been achieved?