In traditional hydraulic robotics, actuators must be sized for the highest possible load, resulting in significant energy losses when operating in lower force regimes. Variable recruitment fluidic artificial muscle (FAM) bundles offer a novel bio-inspired solution to this problem. Divided into individual MUs, each with its own control valve, a variable recruitment FAM bundle uses a switching control scheme to selectively bring MUs online according to load demand. To date, every dynamic variable recruitment study in the literature has considered homogeneous bundles containing MUs of equal size. However, natural mammalian muscle MUs are heterogeneous and primarily operate based on Henneman's size principle, which states that MUs are recruited from smallest to largest for a given task. Is it better for a FAM variable recruitment bundle to operate according to this principle, or are there other recruitment orders that result in better performance? What are the appropriate criteria for switching between recruitment states for these different recruitment orders? This paper seeks to answer these questions by performing two case studies exploring different bundle MU size distributions, analyzing the tradeoffs between tracking performance and energetics, and determining how these tradeoffs are affected by different MU recruitment order and recruitment state transition thresholds. The only difference between the two test cases is the overall force capacity (i.e. total size) of the bundle. For each test case, a Pareto frontier for different MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds is constructed. The results show that there is a complex relationship between overall bundle size, MU size distributions, recruitment orders, and recruitment state transition thresholds corresponding to the best tradeoffs change along the Pareto frontier. Overall, these two case studies validate the use of Henneman's Size Principle as a variable recruitment strategy, but also demonstrate that it should not be the only variable recruitment method considered. They also motivate the need for a more complex variable recruitment scheme that dynamically changes the recruitment state transition threshold and recruitment order based on loading conditions and known system states, along with a co-design problem that optimizes total bundle size and MU size distribution.