Garold Stults appeals the district court’s 2 order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We review that decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Ingram v. Chater, 107 F.3d 598, 600 (8th Cir. 1997).

Having carefully reviewed the record, including the evidence Stults submitted to the Appeals Council, see Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000), we find no basis for disturbing the 'ALJ’s credibility determination, see Gray v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1999) (ALJ properly discredited claimant’s subjective complaints of pain based on discrepancy between complaints and medical evidence, lack of pain medications, and claimant’s activities), or his conclusion that Stults had the residual functional capacity to perform his past relevant work as a grill operator, see Sells v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1995) (when determining whether claimant can perform such work, ALJ must specify demands of such work and compare them with what claimant was capable of doing).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.