As my posts have a common theme, Ill continue with that....It comes down to what works for each individual.
It depends on the goal. If the goal is just to do it and not necessarily worry about the time, then running the 6.2 isnt necessary. Someone in good enough shape to run 5 somewhat regularly would have no prob. running the extra 1.2
Now, its a different story if a person is running the race to beat times and actually compete with himself/herself or someone else. In that situation, I would recommend running distances longer than what the race actually is.
Now having said that....I think that in the former situation, we are talking about someone who may be just beginning or isnt all that serious. In that case they may need some more assistance.
In the latter, chances are that they know a little more of how their body acts.
So, to answer your question... its not necessarily bad advice, it just depends on the situation.
I improved my marathon time from my 1st of 3:49 in Oct of 2003 to my second of 3:29 in May 2004 by running distances of no longer than 15 miles. I work better by increasing/decreasing intensities....however, for next summers races, as I continue to advance, I intend to include some runs around 25, in addition to the shorter, intense 10 milers. Goal for next year is 3:10!!!
That makes sense. I was thinking that they meant that you could still race well (your usual pace, without dying) even though you haven't been running the race distance regularly. I have heard something like this before from someone who was training for a marathon. He was telling me that you only need to do a couple of long runs (but less then 26 mi) before doing the race. So I guess they're talking about what you need to do to finish. I just wouldn't want to do that and feel like crap towards the end of the race - and the next day! I mean, why not just take the extra time to build up to it? Anyway, thanks for the response.