Hi Ken,
 I agree with much of what you say and Joseph says. However, in support 
of your perspective, I would argue that the calcium losses
are likely due to factors such as magnesium deficiency (which is needed 
for parathyroid maintenance) autoimmunity (resulting from
neolithic food consumption) and acidity (resulting from grain, dairy, 
etc.,  consumption).

Activity certainly is a big factor as well.
Best Wishes,
Ron

Ken O'Neill wrote:
> Hello Joseph:
>
> In your example, you contrast two older people, one of whom elected to put
> on 20 lbs of additional muscle - presumably the other did nothing.
>
> Muscle wasting loss begins as early as age 25. From 25-50 the rate of loss
> is up to 0.5 pound/year. From 50-late 60s loss accelerates at up to one
> pound/year. After that it goes as high as 2 pounds yearly to early or mid
> eighties, and assuming someone who's been rotting away since age 25 hits
> those birthdays, mid 80s goes up to four pounds yearly. Increase is not
> linear but exponential loss.
>
> All of which says of those two older folks, if the one puts on 20 lbs of
> muscle, s/he's gained back to less than earlier. The other one is still
> subject to background degeneration that's been going on for years.
>
> Most standard physicians don't look upstream for causes of metabolic
> syndrome. 
>
> I don't really believe the seniors you describe were 'just fit enough' -
> that precipitating events could so  profoundly shut them down argues for
> abiding in illusionary 'just fit enough', in denial about their actual
> chronic degeneration - largely because detrimental reliance on physicians
> who don't know better. Hips often break not do to falls, instead due to
> severe calcium loss resulting in bone collapse causing the fall.
>
> -