Like I said, the real world is more complicated. And not least of all because the grain of carbon fiber makes it a much more complicated structure.

But unlike the charts of steel and aluminum showing fatigue life, there isn't one like that for carbon. Essentially, as long as you don't bend it far enough to hit the breaking point, you aren't accumulating stress damage. And that likely has something to do with the fact that CF, unlike aluminum, steel or Ti, can't be deformed. It has no plastic deformation limit; it either breaks or not.

I think you also see steel's fatigue limit as an advantage, but it only prevents steel breaking if it never is stressed above that level. Real world, strong riders eventually break steel frames from fatigue. And thinner, narrower tubed steel frames don't last as long.

What's funny is that I have seen more steel bikes with fatigue failures than I have seen on any aluminum bike - including all those bonded Treks and Vitus frames. It could be simply because those bikes are constructed in a way that have fewer stress risers, unlike steel with lugs and chainstay bridges. And, bonded aluminum frames have never had a hot torch applied to them, decreasing the material strength.

So the reality is much more complicated than a materials chart would suggest.