SI Joint Pain Isn’t About “Alignment” — It’s About How Your Body Handles Force
- Bray Chiropractic & Wellness

- Apr 8
- 3 min read
If you’ve ever been told your pelvis is “out of alignment,” your SI joint is “rotated,” or something needs to be “put back into place,” you’re hearing one of the most common explanations for low back and pelvic issues.
It sounds logical — but it’s not how the body actually works.
To understand why, we need to look at how the sacrum and pelvis are actually designed to handle load.
Understanding SI Joint Pain: Anatomy, Load Transfer, and Stability
At the center of this system is the sacrum — a triangular bone at the base of your spine that connects your upper body to your lower body. On either side are the sacroiliac (SI) joints. These joints are not built for large movement. Their primary role is force transfer.
Every time you stand, walk, or lift, force moves:
Spine → Sacrum → SI joints → Pelvis → Legs
Here’s the critical piece:
The orientation of the SI joints creates shear forces, which are inherently destabilizing. Without a system to control those forces, the pelvis would not remain stable under load.

Stability Is About Force, Not Position
The body stabilizes joints through two systems:
Passive stability → ligaments and joint shape
Active stability → muscle-driven compression
Passive structures provide baseline support, but they are not sufficient under dynamic load.
Real stability comes from force closure — coordinated muscular compression across the joint. This is where the “alignment” model breaks down.
The SI joint does not need to be “put back into place.”It needs to be properly loaded and stabilized.
The Core and Pelvic Floor: The System Most People Miss
The “core” is not just your abs — it’s a pressure system:
The transversus abdominis provides circumferential tension
The diaphragm regulates pressure from above
The pelvic floor supports from below
Together, they create a controlled pressure environment that stabilizes the spine and pelvis.
If this system is not functioning well, force distribution becomes inefficient — and other muscles begin to compensate.

What the Research Actually Shows
Pel et al. (2008) analyzed SI joint mechanics using a 3D biomechanical model.
Key findings:
Baseline SI joint shear forces reached ~563 N per side
Larger muscles increased compression by ~70%
True stability required ~400% increase in compression
Most importantly:
Stability was achieved when activation shifted to:
Transversus abdominis
Pelvic floor muscles
This created a “clamping” effect across the SI joint, significantly improving stability.

Why This Changes How We Treat SI Joint Pain
If SI joint pain is a force management issue, then treatment needs to reflect that.
Manual therapy can reduce symptoms, but it doesn’t fully solve the problem on its own.
Long-term improvement comes from:
Restoring pressure control
Integrating pelvic floor function
Improving how load moves through the body
A Better Approach to SI Joint Pain
At Bray Chiropractic & Wellness, the goal is not to chase alignment — it’s to improve how your body handles force.
That means assessing:
Movement patterns
Load transfer
Pelvic floor function
Frequently Asked Questions About SI Joint Pain
Is my SI joint actually out of alignment?
In most cases, no. The joint has very limited movement. Symptoms are more often related to force distribution than structural position.
Can an adjustment fix SI joint pain?
It can help short-term, but without addressing underlying mechanics, symptoms often return.
What does the pelvic floor have to do with SI joint pain?
It plays a key role in stabilizing the pelvis and controlling pressure. Without it, the SI joint is less stable under load.
Why does my pain keep coming back?
Usually, because the underlying force management system hasn’t been addressed.
References
Pel, J. J. M., Spoor, C. W., Pool-Goudzwaard, A. L., Hoek van Dijke, G. A., & Snijders, C. J. (2008). Biomechanical analysis of reducing sacroiliac joint shear load by optimization of pelvic muscle and ligament forces. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 36(3), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-007-9385-8





Comments