The above-captioned is an excellent article, by Jarvinen et al., published a few months ago in the Journal of Internal Medicine. You can find it with Google (or some other search engine), since links don't seem to be allowed on this website. Though the article is highly academic and therefore not the easiest reading, these authors importantly take on the assumptions that drive the diagnosis of, and current pharmaceutical treatment for, osteoporosis. Personally, I consider them a more authoritative source than any of the popular medical websites, even those that are reputable, since all of the sites, to one degree or another, tend to parrot the mainstream view.
An unspoken assumption that permeates this site, and people's reasoning re: whether or not to take osteoporosis meds in general, is that, because osteoporosis is a frightening, potentially injurious condition, one must do something to combat it. (The article addresses this as well.) Regrettably, many serious-to-life-threatening conditions or diseases lack any viable treatment -- think, e.g., certain cancers, Alzheimer's, congestive heart failure. That vacuum of fear is fertile grounds for pharmaceutical solutions that may be more harmful than the condition itself, as well as wishful shot-in-the-dark measures such as various supplements and dietary modifications. I'm not suggesting that we need do nothing, even though there's no way of telling what may/may not actually help. Still, it seems important to acknowledge that none of these measures are as yet clinically substantiated, as the letdown could be great in the event that one goes all out yet sees no improvement in bone density or even sustains a fracture despite best efforts. I think the Jarvinen article does a lot to help put fracture risk in perspective.
I am back after a two-plus-week absence due to a death in the family (elderly mother; died of CHF, which, contrary to what you state, was very definitely an acute vs. chronic disease, at least in her case).