Vitamins A and D cooperate with one another. They are not antagonists, but large doses of one may cause harm when not accompanied by the other.
This is why I am glad of the help found here! I read Dr. Cannell's piece and wasn't aware there was another side to the issue. Thank you for the article. It is interesting and very informative (though some is certainly over my head). It does seem that medical history—not to mention nature—favors the taking of A and D together. I will restart taking the A at 25,000 IU when I have the vitamin D.
ofonorow wrote:. . . there is a difference getting your vitamin D in pills and getting it from skin exposed to sun shine (UV/B light).
I do understand there is a general consensus among vitamin D experts that it is better to get your D from having your skin exposed to UVB light (which some say in turn is second best to sunshine?). However, with UVB, proximity to the bulb, duration of treatment, and amount of exposed skin are all factors that play into how much vitamin D is generated, right? On duration, the Vitamin D Wiki estimates that it takes over an hour-and-a-half just to get 2,000 IU from a UVB bulb (though they don't mention how much skin is exposed or how close you'd need to be). Is their guess way off?
It seems much simpler to just take a pill once daily, especially when I can get a hundred 50,000 IU capsules for just $20.
Though certainly, if this trial provides any benefit, I will want to get vitamin D in the best way possible. And I am interested in any reading you would recommend on UVB, specifically regarding the factors that affect how much IU is received, but also the benefits of UVB over supplementing (maybe less IU from UVB is still better than more received orally?).
Thank you again.