REF-1429 · Miller et al., 2019 · Sports Medicine · Paper · PubMed

Do I need 1% incline on the treadmill to match running outside?

Not for oxygen cost at steady speeds: pooled crossover studies put 0% and 1% within 0.6 mL/kg/min of overground (means). Heart rate and effort vary with speed. Abstract.

Main caveat: Abstract only; the Maastricht repository copy listed by OpenAlex returned a bot check.
fairly strong evidenceMeasured on non-athletes to highly trained athletes

Miller, Van Hooren and colleagues (University of South Australia, Maastricht, Montana, Macquarie) pooled crossover studies that compared running on a treadmill with running overground in healthy adults, for physiology (VO2, heart rate, lactate), perception (RPE, preferred speed) and performance (time trials and sprints).

Thirty-four studies qualified; 12 used a 1% grade and 3 used more than 1%. At submaximal speeds on a motorised treadmill, VO2 was similar to overground at 0% (MD −0.55 ± 0.93 mL/kg/min) and at 1% grade (0.37 ± 1.12), while lactate was lower (−1.26 ± 0.71 and −0.52 ± 0.50 mmol/L).

Heart rate and RPE on the treadmill were higher at faster submaximal speeds and lower at slower ones. Near maximal effort, VO2 and lactate tended to be lower on the treadmill while heart rate (0 ± 1 bpm) and RPE (−0.4 ± 2.0 units on the 6-20 scale) were similar; at maximum, VO2 (0.78 ± 1.55) and heart rate (−1 ± 2 bpm) were similar.

Endurance performance was poorer on a motorised treadmill (SMD −0.50 ± 0.36); sprint performance varied widely and did not differ significantly (−1.4 ± 5.8 km/h). The authors conclude that some, but not all, variables differ and that the differences may depend on running speed.

Our reading: for oxygen cost the 1% grade is a convention, not a necessity — at group level both 0% and 1% sat within about half a mL/kg/min of overground running, with confidence intervals spanning zero, which agrees with the base's single study that found 1% mattering only at faster speeds (REF-733, B, n = 9).

What does not transfer is the feel and the heart rate at a given pace, and the time-trial result.

Protocol

Question: physiological, perceptual and performance measures on a treadmill vs overground in healthy adults.
Search: seven databases (AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science) from inception to May 2018; registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017074640).
Inclusion: crossover designs; outcomes VO2, heart rate, blood lactate, RPE, preferred speed, endurance time-trial duration or sprint speed; motorised or non-motorised treadmills.
Sample: n = 34 studies; 12 with a 1% treadmill grade, 3 with more than 1%.
Analysis: meta-analyses of mean difference or standardised mean difference ± 95% confidence intervals, with submaximal, near-maximal and maximal intensity subgroups.
Funding and interests: PubMed and Crossref list a Kootstra Talent Fellowship from Maastricht University Medical Center+; no conflict statement in the abstract record.

Key Results

Measure (treadmill minus overground)Mean difference ± 95% CI
Submaximal VO2, 0% grade−0.55 ± 0.93 mL/kg/min
Submaximal VO2, 1% grade0.37 ± 1.12 mL/kg/min
Submaximal lactate, 0% grade−1.26 ± 0.71 mmol/L
Submaximal lactate, 1% grade−0.52 ± 0.50 mmol/L
Submaximal heart rate and RPEhigher on the treadmill at faster submaximal speeds, lower at slower ones (no pooled number in the abstract)
Near-maximal VO2−1.25 ± 2.09 mL/kg/min
Near-maximal lactate−0.54 ± 0.63 mmol/L
Near-maximal heart rate0 ± 1 bpm
Near-maximal RPE−0.4 ± 2.0 units (6-20 scale)
Maximal VO20.78 ± 1.55 mL/kg/min
Maximal heart rate−1 ± 2 bpm
Endurance performance (motorised treadmill)SMD −0.50 ± 0.36 (poorer on the treadmill)
Sprint performance−1.4 ± 5.8 km/h (not significant; varied considerably)

Mechanisms

Measured: similar oxygen cost at submaximal speeds at 0% and 1%; lower lactate on the treadmill; heart rate and RPE shifted with speed; maximal values alike; poorer endurance performance on a motorised belt.
Authors' interpretation: some variables differ between treadmill and overground running, and the differences may depend on the speed at which they are measured.
Inference: the abstract does not explain the heart-rate and RPE pattern; still air (no cooling airflow), the fixed belt speed and familiarity with treadmill running are plausible contributors, untested here. A self-paced time trial on a motorised belt removes free pacing, which may explain part of the performance gap.

Practical Application

Do I need 1% incline on the treadmill to match running outside? Not for oxygen cost at steady speeds: pooled crossover studies put 0% and 1% within 0.6 mL/kg/min of overground (means). Heart rate and effort vary with speed. Abstract.
Expect road pace to feel different on the belt: at faster submaximal speeds heart rate and RPE ran higher on the treadmill and at slower speeds lower, while oxygen cost was similar, so the same pace costs about the same oxygen but heart-rate and RPE targets shift (group means; the switch speed is not given). Steering treadmill sessions by effort or heart rate is the base's practice, not a finding of this paper.
Do not judge race fitness from a treadmill time trial: endurance performance was poorer on a motorised treadmill (SMD −0.50); compare like with like.
Maximal heart rate carries over: maximal and near-maximal heart rate were the same on the belt and overground (−1 ± 2 and 0 ± 1 bpm), so on group means an HRmax from a treadmill test applies outside (SYNTH-38); individual differences were not reported.
The 1% convention ([REF-733]): keep it if it helps, especially at faster speeds; it is not needed to match oxygen cost at easy speeds on group data. Two later papers outside the base dispute it: Shahidi 2026 (12 trained men, 8-15 km/h) found overground oxygen cost higher than treadmill running even at 1%, and a review (Bottura 2026) argues that no fixed grade fits every runner, speed and setting.
What it does not show: running mechanics and injury risk (a separate meta-analysis, Van Hooren 2020, is not in the base), individual differences, inclines above 1%, or the heat of indoor running (REF-231, REF-886).

Limitations

Abstract only; the Maastricht repository copy listed by OpenAlex returned a bot check.
No participant numbers, heterogeneity or risk-of-bias results in the abstract.
Speed dependence unquantified: the abstract does not say at what speed heart rate and RPE switch from lower to higher on the treadmill.
Healthy adults in laboratory crossovers; training status, sex and treadmill type per study not given here.
Group means only; a mean difference near zero can hide large individual differences.
Funding and interests: a Kootstra Talent Fellowship (Maastricht University Medical Center+) per PubMed and Crossref; no conflict statement in the record.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

(from the abstract) — a registered meta-analysis of crossover studies (the rubric's A for an SR/MA of controlled trials) held at A-: the abstract gives neither the participant numbers nor heterogeneity, the comparisons mix speeds, grades and treadmill types, and the speed at which heart rate and RPE switch from lower to higher on the treadmill is not stated