sharing gloves

[mind-lost]

I just would like to get a doc's opinion on this.

Basically I was working out in the boxing area of the gym, where they have heavy bags suspended from the cieling.  I was kicking the bag and punching barehanded.  Another guy was there, kicking and punching a different heavy bag.  

As I was punching more the other guy offered me his gloves to use on the bag so I could practice punching harder.  I did NOT have my hands wrapped with any cloth that is usually worn with a boxing glove and the other guy did NOT wrap his hands either, since these weren't like boxing gloves just padded knuckle gloves that have the fingers sticking out.  So it was bare hands to gloves.
When I was done and took off gloves, I notice the area of pinkie and ring finger knuckle was scraped up badly enough to see lots of tiny nicks of blood, as well as the webbing between those fingers had developed cuts

My concern is if I get this type of scrape marks from punching, so would the other guy. Since we're doing the same thing such as punching, I think my scrape areas can line up with the same area as any area of blood inside his gloves.

i know you don't get HIV from touching blood on inanimate objects, but I always thought it was because my skin was intact and that other blood is dried up anyway.  But since my skin might even have been scraped from the earlier punching on the bag and only a second or two passes before I try on his gloves I am worried.  I don't want to think I could HIV from a silly thing like this, but I don't know if medically it is silly or not.

[JohnJohnJ]

A related discussion, Gloves HIV was started.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

Thanks, Willl.  That makes sense.  The other point I meant to make but didn't think to say is that the risk really is all over the map, depending on the nature of the percutaneous exposure.  A deep slash with a scalpel in the middle of a bloody operatiing field undoubtedly carries far higher risk than 1 in 300; and the more typical superficial needle stick probably well under that, maybe even less than 1 in 1000.  In any case, the generalization applies:  if percutaneous injury with a contaminated instrument carries only a 1 in 300 risk, what can it be through shared athletic equipment?  Or for that matter a quick BJ?

Thanks again--  HHH, MD

[Willl]

Unless it has changed in the last 6 months, percutaneous risk is still being referenced at 1/300, mucous membrane contact with blood is about 1/1000.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

There is no chance of HIV transmission through the exposure you describe.  If that was a risk, HIV would be endemic among all wrestlers, boxers, and perhaps gym users in general.  In any case, there is no HIV in sweat, and the amount of virus you could plausibly be exposed to through the superficial scratches you describe simply would bee much to low to cause infection.  By way of comparison, when health care providers are stuck with sharp instruments contaminated with HIV infected blood, the overall rate of HIV transmission is (last time I read the data) around 1 chance in 1000.  (I would be happy if someone wants to look up the most recent data and check me out.)  Many non-medical folks assume that all it takes is 1 virus to transmit HIV.  in fact, it probably takes thousands or even millions of virus particles.

Anyway, don't lose any sleep over HIv exposure through contaminated athletic gear.  Use common sense hygiene, of course--but the reason is primarily to protect against other garden-variety infections, not HIV.

Good luck--  HHH, MD