Daniel Leach appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, see Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1091 (8th Cir. 2012), we agree with the district court that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Specifically, we conclude that the adverse credibility determination is entitled to deference, because the administrative law judge (ALJ) explicitly discredited Leach and gave good reasons for doing so, see Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012); see also Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 901 (8th Cir. 2011) (there is no doubt in many social security cases that claimant has pain, but real issue is severity of pain); and that the ALJ properly rejected the more restrictive limitations cited by treating physician Michael Ulrich, see Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805, 815 (8th Cir. 2009) (because record must be evaluated as whole, treating *682 physician’s opinion does not automatically control). The district court is affirmed.