MEMORANDUM ***

Patricia Stiles appeals from the district court’s decision, affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have juris*996diction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As the facts are well known to the parties, we give only a brief description of the relevant issues and procedural posture of the case.

Stiles applied for disability insurance benefits in August 2002, alleging disability since December 2001 due to fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic neuromuscular pain, memory loss, migraines, and loss of muscle control. A hearing was held before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on January 7, 20Q4. In denying her application, the ALJ found that Stiles was not disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act1 based on the following findings: (1) Stiles’ severe impairments included fibromyalgia syndrome, a myofascial type of pain syndrome, chronic headaches, and cervical degenerative joint disease; however, no combination of her impairments met or medically equaled the severity of any impairment found in the Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1; (2) Stiles’ subjective complaints of pain and other disabling limitations were not fully credible and her assertion that she was unable to perform all regular, sustained work activity was not credible; (3) Stiles had the residual functional capacity to perform light work on a sustained basis; and (4) Stiles’ residual functional capacity would not preclude her from performing her past relevant work as a cashier or as a telemarketer. On July 30, 2004, after reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the Appeals Council denied Stiles’ request for benefits, thereby rendering the ALJ’s decision as the Commissioner’s final decision. Stiles then commenced an action in the district court, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision. On September 21, 2005, the district court adopted the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge to deny Stiles’ motion to reverse and to grant the Commissioner’s cross-motion to affirm. Stiles filed this timely appeal.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s order upholding a Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). The Commissioner’s decision “may be reversed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if it is based on legal error.” Id.

*997To support her argument that the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits was erroneous, Stiles argues that the ALJ improperly discredited the degree of her subjective pain testimony solely on the basis that her testimony was unsupported by objective medical evidence.2 We disagree. Although an ALJ may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to the degree of her subjective pain symptoms solely on the ground that they are unsupported by objective evidence, Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995), weak objective support does undermine subjective complaints of disabling symptoms. Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 601 (9th Cir. 1998). Most important, the ALJ must give specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject allegations of subjectively disabling symptoms. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959-60 (9th Cir. 2002).

We find that the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons for rejecting Stiles’ allegations of subjectively disabling symptoms. In particular, the ALJ’s decision was based on more than a lack of objective medical evidence. The ALJ concluded that

There is a lack of medical documentation of an impairment which would cause extreme pain or pain which would compromise the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. The record as a whole does not reveal that Ms. Stiles is precluded from performing all regular, sustained work activity. The level of medication the claimant takes and her level of daily activities suggest that her pain is controlled sufficiently to enable her to perform work activity. There is no evidence of disuse muscle atrophy or wasting commonly associated with severe pain. Also there is no evidence of attention, concentration, or cognitive deficits from pain. There is no statement by a physician that the claimant experienced severe and unremitting pain. Her daily activities are consistent with basic work-related activities, and she has not participated in the therapeutic treatment normally associated with a severe pain syndrome. Consequently, I find that the claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are not fully credible and not consistent with the medical record (20 C.F.R. 404.1529, Social Security Ruling 96-7p). Although it appears that the claimant experiences some pain due to fibromyalgia, it is not of the degree she alleges.

ER 106. These conclusions of the ALJ, that the subjective complaints were not borne out by the objective findings to be expected, such as muscle wasting, atrophy or loss of sensation due to nerve damage, are based on his review of the medical records, including those of Drs. Ghoshal and Bicocca. ER 105.

In sum, substantial evidence warrants the ALJ’s reasons for discrediting *998Stiles’ testimony as to her degree of subjective pain symptoms and her ability to work. The ALJ specifically noted that there was a “lack of ongoing and significant objective clinical findings which would support a finding of disability,” that Stiles’ range of activities was not consistent with the presence of a disabling level of pain, and that the level of medication Stiles took and her lack of participation in therapeutic treatment suggested that her pain was controlled and that her pain and mental status did not hamper her ability to return to work. The ALJ noted his own observations that “at the hearing, the claimant did not evidence any problems with concentration or memory, and was able to recite in an organized manner specific details of her medical and work history.” Finally, the ALJ noted that Stiles demonstrated sub-maximal effort during a stress test to evaluate her complaints of chest pain.

Accordingly, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s reasons for discrediting Stiles’ testimony regarding her degree of subjective pain symptoms and her ability to work. Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s finding that Stiles has the residual functional capacity to perform light work on a sustained basis.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.