Six feet is not too long for the LMR-100-equivalent cable that we use for shorter antenna cables. However, it is right at the threshold at which we would recommend that you consider the thicker cable. This comparison shows that the expenditure for the thicker cable, which is about 25% higher cost, is proportional to the benefit of lesser signal loss (attenuation). If you are using small antennas you may need as much gain as possible retained during passage through the cable and it would make good sense to pay the additional 25% for the 200-thickness cable:
CLF-100 coax (quality similar to LMR-100, but better): Attenuation (signal loss) is 0.39dB per foot: Over six feet, you would lose 2.34dB
CLF-200 (quality similar to LMR-200, but better): Attenuation (signal loss) is 0.30dB per foot: Over six feet, you would lose 1.80dB
The difference is 0.54dB. You may know that addition of an antenna multiplies the power of the WiFi device, such that even a difference of 0.54dB makes a big difference: https://en.data-alliance.net/power-increase-db
3.0dB net antenna gain (after cable loss) = 2.0X power increase for WiFi device
3.5dB net antenna gain (after cable loss) = 2.6X power increase for WiFi device <- a 25% power increase coming from a 0.5dB net antenna gain in this example.
For a six foot cable VS. ten foot cable, the difference in your cost between using 100 thickness cable VS. 200-thickness would be $1.25.
Therefore your power increase would be roughly proportional to the difference in cost of the cable.
LMR-100 has lower signal-loss than RG316