Gymshark grew from a garage operation to a billion-dollar brand in under a decade, and the product is a genuine part of that story. The fit is athletic, the price point is accessible, and the brand has built real credibility in performance-focused training communities. If you wear Gymshark, the performance case is understood.
The material case is a different matter, and it became substantially harder to ignore in 2026. For women looking for non toxic gym clothes that deliver athletic performance without the synthetic material profile, the options worth knowing are specific.
Why the activewear material conversation shifted in 2026
In April 2026, the Texas Attorney General issued a Civil Investigative Demand to Lululemon, investigating whether the brand misled consumers about the potential presence of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in activewear marketed to health-conscious buyers. Lululemon confirmed PFAS had been used in its durable water repellent products before being phased out in early 2024. A separate class action was filed in California making parallel allegations.
The investigation matters beyond Lululemon. It confirmed that PFAS use in performance activewear was not a fringe practice. It was industry standard at the premium end of the market through at least 2024, and the regulatory direction has shifted decisively: California and New York implemented broader PFAS-in-apparel bans in January 2025, and 30 state attorneys general had initiated litigation against PFAS manufacturers by the end of 2024.
If Lululemon's chemical practices were under regulatory scrutiny while the brand maintained a published restricted substances list and wellness-focused positioning, the question of what is actually in synthetic activewear at price points below Lululemon, including Gymshark, becomes worth asking honestly. The full picture on toxic chemicals in workout clothes covers what is and is not disclosed on standard activewear labels.
What Gymshark is made of
Gymshark's core fabrics are nylon, polyester, and spandex blends across virtually the entire product line. High-performing synthetic materials that shed microplastic fibers per wash, that sit against skin during exercise as petroleum-derived polymers, and that may carry chemical finishes not visible on the fiber content label.
The label tells you what the fabric is made of. It does not tell you what was applied to the fabric after it was made. That information is what the Texas AG investigation was attempting to surface for Lululemon, and the gap exists across the industry, not just at one brand.
What Gymshark does well
The honest accounting: Gymshark's fit engineering for athletic body types is strong. The compression is consistent, the fabrics hold their shape under high-output training, and the price point makes the quality accessible. A genuine alternative needs to match the functional performance, not just the aesthetic.
1. Bellissima
The Sempre Leggings use 92% TENCEL Lyocell and 8% spandex, a blend designed to deliver athletic performance without the synthetic material profile that defines Gymshark's line.
TENCEL Lyocell is produced by Lenzing AG from eucalyptus wood pulp through a closed-loop manufacturing process that recovers more than 99% of its production solvent per cycle, according to Lenzing's published sustainability data. The fiber manages moisture through hygroscopic fiber behavior rather than synthetic hydrophobic treatment, a distinction confirmed in active wear performance research by Kaplan et al. in Fibers and Polymers (2014). No petroleum-derived base fiber. No PFAS chemical finishes. No microplastic shedding at the scale of polyester or nylon. The full case for the benefits of TENCEL for activewear covers every performance dimension.
The fiber carries OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certification, which independently tests for PFAS, phthalates, formaldehyde, and heavy metals on the finished textile. The Lululemon investigation made the value of independent certification clear: a brand restricted substances list and wellness branding are not the same as third-party verification.
The price point sits above Gymshark, which reflects the material cost of natural fiber production at this quality level. The cost-per-wear calculation changes when durability under repeated mechanical stress is factored in, which TENCEL Lyocell's longer fiber structure supports over time.
2. Vuori
Vuori occupies a premium market position with strong fit engineering and consistent quality control. The aesthetic is slightly more lifestyle-oriented than Gymshark's performance-focused positioning, but the functional performance for studio and everyday training is solid.
The fabric profile is predominantly synthetic, nylon and polyester blends, which means the in-use material concerns that motivate moving away from Gymshark are not substantively different with Vuori. For women whose primary motivation is a different aesthetic or design language rather than a different material story, Vuori is a meaningful alternative. For women seeking a different material profile, it is a lateral move.
3. Girlfriend Collective
Girlfriend Collective's recycled polyester line addresses the upstream supply chain concern, diverting plastic waste from disposal into fiber production. The environmental story on that specific measure is genuine, and the brand's sizing inclusivity and quality are real strengths.
Recycled polyester sheds microplastic fibers at rates comparable to virgin polyester, as documented by Browne et al. in Environmental Science and Technology (2011). The in-use material profile for skin contact purposes is equivalent to conventional synthetic activewear. For women prioritizing supply chain sustainability over in-use material composition, Girlfriend Collective has a strong case. For women trying to move away from synthetic materials against the skin, it does not fully address that concern.
4. Outdoor Voices
Outdoor Voices has built a loyal following around a less performance-intense, more movement-in-everyday-life positioning. The aesthetic is distinctive and the brand community is genuine. The fabric profile is predominantly synthetic, with recycled and conventional nylon and polyester across most of the line.
For women who want a different brand culture and aesthetic than Gymshark's performance-first positioning, Outdoor Voices is worth knowing. For women seeking a different material story, the fabric composition does not represent a meaningful departure from conventional synthetic activewear.
5. Patagonia
Patagonia's activewear line is not designed around the same athletic aesthetic as Gymshark, but for women whose training includes outdoor activity and who weight supply chain accountability heavily, Patagonia's published environmental commitments and Fair Trade certification represent genuine differentiation in a market where those claims are frequently overstated.
The fabric profile remains predominantly synthetic for performance pieces. The differentiation is in supply chain accountability rather than in-use material composition.
The honest ranking
If the motivation for moving away from Gymshark is the synthetic material profile, particularly given the regulatory direction the Lululemon investigation reflects, the only option in this ranking that addresses that concern at the fiber level for performance activewear is Bellissima. The others represent different aesthetics, different price points, or improved supply chain stories built on similar synthetic foundations. For the full framework on evaluating any brand against these criteria, the non-toxic activewear buying guide covers what to verify and how. The parallel analysis for Lululemon alternatives covers the premium end of the same market.
If the motivation is simply a different brand experience, any of the options above may serve that need depending on your specific training context and aesthetic preferences.
Knowing which problem you are trying to solve means you do not end up with a different synthetic brand and the same underlying concern you started with.
Sources
Texas Attorney General. (2026, April 13). Attorney General Ken Paxton Launches Investigation into Lululemon Over Potential Presence of Toxic "Forever Chemicals" in Activewear. texasattorneygeneral.gov.
Kaplan, S., et al. (2014). Thermal comfort of lyocell and other fibers in active wear. Fibers and Polymers, 15(6).
Lenzing AG. (2023). TENCEL Lyocell fiber sustainability data. Lenzing Sustainability Report.
Browne, M.A., et al. (2011). Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: Sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(21).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. EPA.gov.