Gymshark built one of the fastest-growing activewear brands in the world on a clear value proposition: high-performance synthetic fabric at an accessible price point, marketed through a fitness community that prioritizes results. The brand does not lead with wellness or sustainability claims. Its identity is performance, aesthetics, and community.
For buyers asking whether Gymshark is non-toxic, that starting point matters. The answer is different from evaluating a brand that has made explicit non-toxic claims. With Gymshark, the question is whether the synthetic fabric lineup it has built its business on carries chemical exposure concerns that buyers should understand.
What Gymshark is made of
Gymshark's product line is built almost entirely on synthetic fabrics. Polyester, nylon, and elastane blends dominate its catalog. These are effective performance fabrics. They manage moisture through hydrophobic surface wicking, resist abrasion, and maintain shape through high-repetition movement. For the gym and high-intensity training contexts Gymshark serves, synthetic fabric performance is real.
The chemical profile of those fabrics is also real. Synthetic fibers are derived from petroleum. Polyester and nylon shed microplastic fibers during washing. Research published in Environmental Science and Technology by Browne et al. (2011) documented synthetic fiber accumulation in marine environments from domestic laundry. A 2016 study by Napper and Thompson published in Marine Pollution Bulletin found that a single synthetic garment can shed more than 1,900 microplastic fibers per wash cycle. A 2022 study by Leslie et al. in Environment International detected microplastic particles in human blood, establishing systemic exposure beyond environmental accumulation.
These are material properties of synthetic fabric, not specific findings about Gymshark products. Every brand building on polyester and nylon carries the same baseline profile.
Chemical finishes on synthetic activewear
Fiber content is one part of the chemical picture. Finishes applied during and after manufacturing are another. Synthetic activewear commonly receives antimicrobial treatments, moisture-management coatings, softening agents, and in some performance lines, durable water repellent treatments. These finishes are not disclosed on fiber content labels.
PFAS compounds have been standard in DWR chemistry across the activewear industry. The April 2026 Texas Attorney General investigation into Lululemon established through formal regulatory process that PFAS were present in that brand's DWR treatments through early 2024. That finding is relevant to the broader industry because DWR practice has not been brand-specific. The chemistry was standard, and the regulatory scrutiny is now active.
Gymshark does not publish a comprehensive PFAS policy with independently verified documentation as of this writing. Its sustainability communications focus on recycled material content targets and packaging. The absence of a published PFAS commitment with independent verification means there is no publicly available confirmation that PFAS chemistry is absent from Gymshark's finished garments.
What Gymshark does not claim
To be fair to Gymshark specifically: the brand has not built its identity around wellness, clean living, or non-toxic positioning. Its marketing is about performance, physique, and community. Buyers who purchase Gymshark for those reasons are making an informed choice about what they are buying.
The concern is different for buyers who assume that all activewear is equivalently safe from a chemical standpoint, or who are transitioning toward more health-conscious purchasing without a framework for evaluating what that means in the fabric context. For those buyers, understanding the synthetic fabric baseline and the current state of PFAS regulatory action provides useful context.
What non-toxic activewear verification actually requires
Independent finished-garment certification is the meaningful signal. OEKO-TEX Standard 100 tests finished textiles for regulated harmful substances including PFAS compounds, heavy metals, formaldehyde, phthalates, and azo dyes, and issues certification through an independent laboratory. A garment carrying this certification has been independently tested, not just assessed against an internal policy.
Fiber composition that eliminates the need for chemical finishing is the other meaningful factor. TENCEL Lyocell achieves moisture management and breathability through its hygroscopic fiber structure without requiring DWR treatment. A 2014 study in Fibers and Polymers by Kaplan et al. confirmed TENCEL Lyocell's moisture management advantage under active wear conditions. No synthetic finish required means no synthetic finish exposure.
Bellissima's Sempre Leggings use 92% TENCEL Lyocell and carry OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certification. For buyers moving away from synthetic activewear specifically because of the chemical exposure profile, the Sempre collection represents a performance alternative with independent certification rather than a marketing claim.
The straightforward answer
Gymshark makes effective performance activewear using a synthetic fabric lineup that carries the baseline chemical profile of synthetic fabrics: microplastic shedding during washing, potential for chemical finishes not disclosed on the label, and no independently verified finished-garment certification confirming the absence of PFAS or other regulated substances.
For buyers whose priority is performance in the gym, Gymshark delivers. For buyers whose priority is confirmed non-toxic composition in the fabric against their skin during exercise, the current state of Gymshark's public documentation does not provide that confirmation.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. EPA.gov.
Browne, M.A., et al. (2011). Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: Sources and sinks. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(21).
Napper, I.E., and Thompson, R.C. (2016). Release of synthetic microplastic plastic fibres from domestic washing machines. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 112(1-2).
Leslie, H.A., et al. (2022). Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment International, 163.
Kaplan, S., et al. (2014). Thermal comfort of lyocell and other fibers in active wear. Fibers and Polymers, 15(6).
OEKO-TEX Association. (2024). OEKO-TEX Standard 100 Testing Criteria. oeko-tex.com.
