Some of the variability in the postings results from varying definitions of the word "cyclist". I might think of a strong cyclist as someone who can do a very fast, climbing Century, while others will think in terms of racing skills - endurance, tactics, sprint, etc.

In my late 30's I was a 190 lb. marathoner with a 2:42 best and a 2:47 climbing marathon over the hills between Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz. All we did was run hills. This was in the days when "training" and "nutrition" for us amateurs wasn't quite so structured to say the least. I could ride a Century with my eyes closed, butt pain excepted, and I could maintain well over 20 mph on the flats (nothing special there of course). With a bit of work I probably would have been a strong cyclist; my mid-30's son, primarily a swimmer, went from doing short triathlons to Cat 2 in a few years.

I don't think it takes a huge amount of ability to run 6 minute miles for a distance, but it takes commitment and a willingness to suffer. I mean, we hammered all the time, running 50 up to 70 miles per week. Same with cycling; To be elite you're going to need genetics or drugs (or both), but to be good you have to commit and suffer. To me that's where the cross-over exists.

I think it's all but impossible to generalize, but generalizing is what the 41 is all about.