all the evidence relating to Claimant’s subjective complaints, including the various factors as required by Polaski, and determined Claimant’s allegations not to be credible. Although the ALJ did not explicitly discuss each Polaski factor in making his credibility determination, a reading of the decision in its entirety shows the ALJ to have acknowledged and considered the factors before discounting Claimant’s subjective complaints. See Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir.1996). Inasmuch as the ALJ expressly considered Claimant’s credibility and noted numerous inconsistencies in the record as a whole, and the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, such determination should not be disturbed by this Court. Id.; Dukes v. Barnhart, 436 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Reynolds v. Chater, 82 F.3d 254, 258 (8th
holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion holding that the alj must make findings setting forth specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in order to reject the contradicted opinion of a treating physician holding that inconsistencies  adequately support the administrative law judges alj  adverse credibility finding