There have been recent posts on this that need not be repeated.
I understand completely your posting it and it seeming to make sense: the article at first sight seems scientific-sounding and seems to make sense, and so seems a great thing to share. No disagreement on how it can seem.
But looking closer reveals a different story.
To avoid needless repetition I will say only this in this thread:
Countless individuals according to this theory are on a chronically acidic diet.
According to this theory, these individuals must chronically be losing calcium from their bones to make up for it.
However, plenty, the great majority in fact, of these individuals in fact have essentially the same bone mass this year as they did last year. In many cases, a little more bone mass. Particularly let's say teenagers eating an acidic diet.
Therefore they absolutely, positively had no chronic loss of calcium "despite" their acidic diet.
Therefore this theory is wrong in claiming resulting calcium loss or claiming this is the only mechanism for regulating pH. Absolutely positively, demonstrably not true.
QED, finis, end of story. No more to be said.