A very simple COTTON protocol
A theory about synthetics and alternatives to polyester world
-Cotton? in a voice that rustled
There was a nice discussion a bit ago in the chick health space (chick clothing space?) (on Substack) about cotton workout wear. (Activewear?) Why is all workout wear synthetic? What happened to COTTON clothes? What happened to tactility? Why is so much new athletic clothing without panache? Why the man-made fibers, why does it look the same? There are good stories about this on NEVERWORNS:
and nice rounds-up of alternative picks on Silky Crunch. It’s a deeper and closer discussion, literally, than the Chad chatter about synthetic short and tee workoutwears, since sports bras are more proximally intimate than those items. But it’s no fun to wear polyester gear, even if it looks good, even if it doesn’t touch your skin.
Across all genders, something’s gone missing in the shift to polyester, elastane, lyocell, blends… The new cotton Chad solutions to me are no good. They are a bit too on the nose, and too specific—they have foresworn the basic nonchalance of athletic clothing.
The new wave of beat-as-crap cotton clothing
Modern cotton solutions still don’t look as good as the existing poly alternatives that predominate. I’m in the mix here as well. After years of lifting in a simple Pro Club 50 poly, 50 cotton T-shirt, and whatever old eBay-acquired synthetic/demon soccer/running shorts I had laying around (with cotton boxers and undershirt underneath), this summer I hit the wall. I had done cotton for a week by accident on a trip—packed wrong, had to wear regular T-shirts to work out in—and when I got back to my routine and gym gear, the synthetics had become much too much. I was sweating more in these things than in regular old T-shirts… constricting to breathe. I liked how it looked, but the combination.. forget the studies… this stuff was not free.
I had held out against changing over to “holistic” cotton items for a while because I like how non-designed stuff and older polyester stuff looks. Clothes should look good. Pro-Clubs fit normally and correctly, depending on how they’re sized, as do old Champion shorts. Nike Dri-Fit from the 2000s, old Adidas trackies—and even Under Armour shirts that you can buy at Modell’s—are, I would say, their modern equivalents. They’re normal and unconcerned, especially compared to more on-the-nose alternatives. I was picking them for years despite the sweat. And while I still go for them for less active pursuits (for example going to the movies). But they just don’t cut the mustard if you’re working out.
Is polyester that bad?
The recent cotton discussion revived longer-rumbling complaints from the darker side of the health space. In the dark nutrition/Chad health world (raw milk people—normal things, new to some people but not new at all) the early adopters have been pointing out for a few years that workout clothing—wicking material, shorts and tees—are deeply synthetic, poisonous, bad for T levels, and actually not normal and value free… something beyond how the clothes look. These piecesare damaging on a cellular level, bad for our hormones and skin, similar to the harm vegetable oils may inflict on our digestion and everything else. Over the past few years, influencers and watchers people early to these discussions have launched batches of cotton workout clothes… cutting some corners, filling in market gaps…
Still, even with stuff to sell the Chad health synthetic fiber argument is more granular than one based on fashion, and goes into deep detail. The clinical prescriptions aren’t airtight, but line up with some traditional research findings. Waterproof clothing has been found to contain PFAs (with other more subjective institutions finding similar things), and plastics—which make up several synthetic fibers—have been found to display hormone-like properties. Phthalates, which can be found in polyester clothes, affect fertility. (Please note that the last two links are not from realcarnivorenews.com or someone’s Substack or Twitter but NPR and NY Times.) Which is to say these toxicity arguments are not as Chad-centric as they may first seem.
(A quick technical aside: Are endocrine-disrupting clothes actually bad for you? Well, depends. The idea of “bad” is… probably real but not life or death. The bad isn’t an immediate toxic shock; more of a styrofoam leach. Phthalates on your unmentionables won’t turn you into a “different person” overnight. I don’t really want to give out answers. What’s informed my approach to synthetic fibers—and ingredients, like vegetable oils and dyes, and environments, like blue light—is that refusing these items lays outside a burden of proof. While intellectual arguments on these things’ safety, and what safety is, may rage on, these products are all items we choose to buy, and are which are not required for living. They’re not the only clothes out there, or ingredients out there. They’re also not often the best options around. Most of all, none of this stuff is free. We’re not under contract to wear this clothing or use these items, by any means. And this stuff isn’t toothpaste. It’s not a utility. Choosing to buy something else isn’t that deep. It’s not that crazy to make a decision before all of double-blind studies play out—as if there either side will ever produce a smoking-gun answer.)
Why the polyester fakery?
So why are clothes still like this? Gee whiz, a lot of reasons, few having to do with style. There’s progress: newer, “better” items, with newer materials, are more exciting because they are new. They get benefit of the doubt in the market (from consumers, by writers) since their novelty is inherently fascinating and has a story behind it. New things, so long as they’re not dog crap, have some built-in good. (Even the argument about single-ingredient food is based around novelty.) That’s just how it is.
There’s also an expertise component. Wicking shorts, quick-drying materials, lighter running shoes are examples of technical progress, designed by professional, credentialed scientists at successful companies for even more successful athletes. These items are what the best of the best wear in the Olympics, or on a pro sports field. More than that—these technological improvements are why they are the best of the best: lighter and newer materials improve these champion/sponsored athletes’ results. When we wear these things, we get closer to them—sure—and we also look like we’re serious. (This isn’t new either, and goes back a century or more to, like, Wheaties and the Louisville Slugger bat company.)
Or maybe it’s just not that deep. New gear helps break up the drudgery of training. It splits “active people” between amateurs and pros, but it also may just get more people moving. I’m not entirely sure clothing matters too much for regular active people, so I’m not sure if it’s bad or it’s good.
Beyond progress
Really, the truth lies in between. Companies and scientists dream up new equipment while the best athletes just go with what they like. Pete Sampras never moved on from his Wilson Pro Staff; Rasheed Wallace only wore Air Force Ones—and consumers, despite advancements, are certainly allowed to stay in the past. Or to put it another way: do you want your workout wear to advance in the same way food’s been “advancing”?
Of course, neither have. (Here’s a nice case in point about the decline in nutritional quality in many foods because of soil erosion.) Athletes are under contract, scientists need to churn out new things, but it’s the consumer who’s truly free. Get the the cotton workout clothing that you like. Is there a Wilson Pro Staff equivalent for cotton shorts? Is there a classic, that’s just out there, good enough for the pros, that works, that is actual high-level athletic clothing, but which doesn’t seem to get used?
Yes there is. I found it. Athletic clothing, in respectable materials, cut right, malleable, clothing which just happens to be polyester free.
In the past few months as I ditched polyester I found a surprising number of options that happen to be cotton, happen to be non-toxic. Clothes that go further back than 2022… deep jock vintage, athletic vintage, close to what Nike used to put out decades ago but, thanks to this search, phthalate free. This is what works for me as someone who’s lifted since high school, has tracked macros for 20 years, has been drinking raw milk for years, has been flipping vintage for decades and who like, doesn’t wear a black CrossFit wedding ring. I’ve been living in these shorts for a month. Brands and sizing guidelines, plus swimwear and poly-free socks are below.
