David Burrow appeals the district court’s 2 order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his March 1997 application for supplemental security income (SSI) in which he alleged disabling pain in his knees, hips, and feet from arthritis. 3 After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Burrow had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light work, and that under the Medical Vocational Guidelines (Guidelines) *584 he was not disabled. Having considered the record and the parties’ arguments, see Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 468 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review), we affirm.

Burrow first argues the ALJ improperly discredited his subjective complaints and did not consider his wife’s testimony. We disagree. The ALJ noted he had considered the factors in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), see Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (ALJ need not discuss methodically each Polaski factor so long as factors are acknowledged and examined), and specified his reasons for discrediting Burrow, see Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2000) (in rejecting claimant’s subjective complaints, ALJ must make express credibility determination and explain reasons for findings). The ALJ then properly relied on the same factors in discrediting the testimony of Burrow’s wife.

Burrow also contends that because he had nonexertional limitations, i.e., varicose veins, obesity, mood problems, pain, and rheumatoid arthritis, the ALJ could not rely on the Guidelines. However, Burrow did not relate his varicose veins, obesity, and mood problems to any nonexertional limitations, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.969a(c) (2000) (nonexertional limitations affect non-strength demands of jobs), and the ALJ properly discounted Burrow’s subjective complaints of pain from rheumatoid arthritis, see Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 258-59 (8th Cir. 1996) (when claimant’s complaints of pain are explicitly discredited for legally sufficient reasons, Guidelines may be used).

Finally, we decline to address Burrow’s remaining arguments which he raises for the first time on appeal. See Roberts, 222 F.3d at 470 (unless manifest injustice would result, claim not raised in district court is subject to forfeiture on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.