[HN Gopher] How Polyester Bounced Back
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How Polyester Bounced Back
        
       Author : mhb
       Score  : 37 points
       Date   : 2022-04-21 19:33 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.worksinprogress.co)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.worksinprogress.co)
        
       | dvh wrote:
       | Any fellow European remembers Dederon fabric?
        
       | mr3martinis wrote:
       | Great article on the history of performance fabrics. The last bit
       | leaves me wanting to learn more about innovations to make them
       | more environmentally friendly.
       | 
       | From my own experience, the tendency for polyester to be smellier
       | than natural fibers relegates it to my workout clothes. Most of
       | the time I'm wearing cotton.
        
       | PKop wrote:
       | A huge source of micro-plastics [0][1]. My wife and I have
       | attempted to cut out as many plastic sources in our household we
       | have to come into contact with, including switching away from
       | polyester clothing to cotton, linen and wool where possible.
       | 
       | From article: "A polyester textile is the same PET material
       | (polyethylene terephthalate) as a plastic soda bottle, only
       | extruded into a filament rather than molded into a container.
       | Like the bottle, the fiber repels water. It's hydrophobic. That's
       | a nice quality in a fleece jacket but a sweat-trapping horror
       | against the skin. To reach its performance potential, polyester
       | needed not simply to keep out moisture but to move it.
       | 
       | 'The body is really fussy. It doesn't like hot, humid conditions
       | right at skin level. Move that humidity a millimeter away and
       | it's a whole different ballgame', explains Randy Harward, who
       | spent more than 40 years developing products and materials in the
       | outdoor apparel industry. Once off the skin, moisture becomes a
       | valuable buffer against wind and chill. In hot weather, it can
       | evaporate and keep you cool. The trick is getting it to that
       | sweet spot."
       | 
       | Yea, no thanks. For weightlifting and running, switching to 100%
       | cotton shorts from Bonobos and Chubbies feels much better,
       | lighter weight, cooler, and less sweaty and harsh on my skin than
       | polyester synthetic material. In addition to the concern I have
       | for potential endocrine disrupting properties of plastics,
       | there's already so many plastics we are exposed to on a daily
       | basis I'd rather not have them directly against my body and skin
       | throughout the day.
       | 
       | [0]
       | https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/microplas...
       | 
       | [1] https://www.naturalclothing.com/what-is-polyester-fabric/
        
         | riversflow wrote:
         | >> For many people. . .the polymer is the worst form of
         | planetary pollution since oil spills. Some of that attitude is
         | cultural snobbery, a marker of class allegiance not that
         | different from Ralph Lauren eschewing synthetics in the early
         | '80s.
         | 
         | There it is! HN cant help itself. I love that one of the
         | citations is literally "naturalclothing.com" that seems like a
         | very neutral source.
         | 
         | > Yeah, no thanks.
         | 
         | I mean you are entitled to the subjective opinion about how
         | comfortable cotton is to work out in, but the objective reality
         | of the mass market is that polyester is hugely popular as a
         | technical fabric. I go backpacking and cotton essential doesn't
         | exist in the back country, everyone is either sporting wool or
         | synthetics. Wet cotton is cold, rough and doesn't breathe. I
         | love high performance natural fibers, and own a lot of wool and
         | down, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that polyester has
         | advantages over wool (less so down).
         | 
         | Is there _any_ evidence that plastic can enter our body
         | transdermally? I find it extremely unlikely and honestly quite
         | far-fetched given everything I know about the skin.
        
           | silisili wrote:
           | It doesn't have to enter transdermally...we just breathe it
           | in! The stuff sheds microplastics just in normal wear...
           | 
           | https://www.inputmag.com/style/microfibers-clothes-
           | fashion-p...
        
         | twobitshifter wrote:
         | Speaking of polyester for athletics, I have not found that
         | they've eliminated the problem of the shirt trapping odor. I
         | have some golf and workout shirts that are absurdly comfortable
         | but smell when they come clean from the laundry. I don't
         | perspire that much but the odor seems to get worse the longer I
         | own the shirt.
        
         | sizzle wrote:
         | What about rayon?
        
         | EL_Loco wrote:
         | Endocrine disruption (potential) of plastics in constant
         | contact with skin is something I sometimes worry about, more
         | for my kids than myself, but I'd like to ask anybody more
         | knowledgeable if it really makes a difference: aren't cotton
         | and polyester both dyed with synthetic dyes/paints, and that's
         | ultimately what's in contact with our bodies? If this is a
         | source of endocrine disruption, won't cotton affect me just the
         | same? Wouldn't I have to wear undyed, natural color cotton to
         | make a difference?
        
           | jbotz wrote:
           | Just because something is "synthetic" doesn't mean it's
           | toxic. Plastics, or rather the additives used to make
           | plastics soft, flexible, water-repellent, etc., are now known
           | to have a specific set of toxic (or endocrine disrupting)
           | effects on biological systems. Other synthetic substances may
           | have none, or different ones. Textile dyes don't contain any
           | endocrine disrupters as far as I know, but they certainly
           | might have other ingredients that aren't very good for you.
           | Also, some bioactive substances may be easily absorbed by the
           | body, others not. There's a lot about all this that we just
           | don't know.
           | 
           | Personally I'm not very worried about absorbing endocrine
           | disrupters through the skin from clothes, but I avoid
           | polyester clothes because a) I don't like the way they feel
           | on my skin, and b) because of the environmental effects
           | (washing them creates micro-plastic pollution, and eventually
           | they become plastic trash).
           | 
           | But it should be pointed out that cotton is also an
           | environmental villain... in cotton agriculture huge amounts
           | of herbicides and pesticides are used, even more than for
           | most other crops. And even if the dyes don't have any
           | significant effect on the health of the wearer, the process
           | of dying textiles produces lots of environmental toxins and
           | probably isn't good for the health of the people working in
           | that industry.
           | 
           | So in relation to the environment and polyester vs cotton
           | you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. The one
           | thing you _can_ do is consume less... keep clothes longer,
           | mend them whenever at all possible, or just go full naturist!
           | ;-)
        
         | decasteve wrote:
         | > including switching away from polyester clothing to cotton,
         | linen and wool where possible.
         | 
         | I've been going through the same thing lately. My daughter had
         | offered to show me how to naturally dye and sew my own clothes
         | if I get the undyed fabric. I'm eager to take her up on that.
        
       | ghaff wrote:
       | In the outdoor activities space advances in materials have really
       | been revolutionary (and not just clothing). When I first started
       | doing winter hiking and related activities seriously in the early
       | 90s, I was definitely in the natural fibers camp including
       | wearing cotton when it seemed reasonable to do so.
       | 
       | These days? I even wear polyester around the house in winter most
       | of the time. (Merino wool is actually my go to a lot of the time
       | --albeit more expensive and more delicate. I wear a lot of cotton
       | Ts in the warmer months however.)
       | 
       | There's also been a real revolution in lightweight packs, tents,
       | etc. More broadly. It's all much better than two or three decades
       | ago.
       | 
       | Malden Mills is also (only something of) a feel-good story. The
       | owner kept paying salaries and rebuilt after a very bad fire in
       | the late nineties and received a lot of praise at the time.
       | However the company went bankrupt a few years later partly as a
       | result.
        
       | DoingIsLearning wrote:
       | > Unlike wool or cotton, polyester resists rather than absorbs
       | water.
       | 
       | This is actually wrong and misleadingly glorifies poliester.
       | 
       | Wool does not absorb water, wool _adsorbs_ water and this makes
       | all the difference in the world.
       | 
       | For instance a jacket made from Burel Wool would need hours of
       | continous deluge before ever getting you wet on the inside.
        
         | pc486 wrote:
         | It's not like polyester resists forever either. Many outdoors
         | folk have experienced "wet out." Resistance only goes so far
         | and I'd rather wear wet wool than wet polyester.
         | 
         | Synthetics are still great though. They have many other
         | benefits and are easy enough to avoid soaking through.
        
           | Infernal wrote:
           | Many synthetics have a PFOA or PFOS treatment to provide the
           | water resistance, which are pretty terrible chemicals when
           | you end up exposed to them all day on your clothing. They
           | also wear off rapidly with normal use, so previously water-
           | resistant clothing loses that property after a few months to
           | a year depending on how often it is worn and washed.
        
       | derbOac wrote:
       | Often "natural" means cotton, but I'm fed up with it. It's often
       | poorly made and doesn't last long, or takes forever to dry, or
       | holds onto moisture too long otherwise.
       | 
       | Polyester just lasts so much longer, even in a blend.
       | 
       | I've gotten to a point where I prefer wool, synthetics, linen, or
       | hemp. Some cotton garments I love but for the most part I'd be
       | happy without any 100% cotton fabric.
        
         | aidenn0 wrote:
         | I used to love wool, but the place we moved to seems to attract
         | carpet beetles; they are back within a year of fumigation.
         | Essentially all of my woolen clothing has holes in it now.
        
           | derbOac wrote:
           | Yeah that's a downside of wool for sure. We've dealt with
           | similar wool-eating insects and it's no fun. I hope you are
           | able to get the problem resolved.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-04-21 23:01 UTC)