Some people blow up on higher reps, some on lower reps.
One point I want to make, and I think at least CCJ would agree with me, is that I think we should stop trying to think of everything in terms of sets and reps. A much more productive AND precise mindset would be of total reps and training load.
The number of reps in a set by itself is almost meaningless. Say you do a set of 5 reps. What does that tell you? Not all that much. One might assume that implies high load; that's not necessarily true.
Why do we even split stuff into sets anyway? Sets exist solely as a way to manage fatigue! You'd do more reps if you could, but you can't. So in order to hit your desired total, you must split it up into separate sessions. Since fatigue is meaningless, who cares how many reps are in each set? The only reason people obsess about reps and sets is because the number of reps tends to predict the load, because most people are always working to within the limit of their capacity at a given rep range. I hope by now we can dispense with that idea.
What I currently do is I have a total rep goal and a training load, and I'll split it up however I feel will get me there as quickly as possible with the lowest fatigue. If the load is low, that means 15-rep sets. If it's high, 5-rep or even 3-rep sets. My last workout was a really crappy one. I felt extremeley weak, but I still wanted to make the reps. So where I had originally planned to do 10-rep sets, I had to split it into 5. But I still hit the total, and the growth will still be there. Another example of a case when the number of reps in each set was fairly meaningless.
I realize I'm rambling at this point, but this does kinda tie into the fiber type issue. Happy belated turkey day.
