Douglas Weischman appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, we find that substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision that Mr. Weischman was not disabled. See Andrews v. Colvin, 791 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir. 2015). Specifically, we defer to the ALJ’s credibility findings, see McDade v. Astrue, 720 F.3d 994, 998 (8th Cir. 2013) (credibility findings are entitled to deference if supported by good reasons and substantial evidence); and we find that the ALJ’s determination of Mr. Weischman’s residual functional capacity (RFC), which was more limited than the determinations of the reviewing and consulting physicians, is consistent with the medical evidence and, for the most part, with Mr. Weisch-man’s own description of his ability to sit, stand, walk and carry, 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 his limitations; RFC must be supported by some medical evidence). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.