Sheila A. Grind appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Because the admin *643 istrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) opinion is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we affirm. See Hill v. Colvin, 753 F.3d 798, 800 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review). We defer to the ALJ’s determination that Grind’s subjective complaints were not fully credible, as it was supported by several valid reasons, see Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2014); and we find no merit to Grind’s assertion that the ALJ’s determination of her residual functional capacity (RFC) did not adequately account for her knee arthritis and obesity. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (RFC must be determined based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s own description of her limitations; RFC must be supported by some medical evidence); see also Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 2012) (burden of persuasion to demonstrate RFC and prove disability remains on claimant). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.