The title of this post and the the title of the article are not justified. The author's take-home in the final paragraph is that standing is not exercise, but standing desks may help those with back or neck pain and some people just prefer it. So, really, there's no evidence here to support the "Overrated" claim in the headline.
Like every post I see on standing desks, or anything with a controversial/contentious set of studies/proponents, each writer can select whichever set of studies from the vast array that conforms to their viewpoint. Those studies that disagree with the final conclusion? Better point out potential confounders, non-causal links, selection bias, etc. Drag out the usual methodological suspects to invalidate an opinion you don't agree with. It's easy to straw-man, though it's also easy to go to the discussion and just copy the authors' own assessment of their studys' weaknesses.
This happens all the time in science like epidemiology, you're not an epidemiologist if you haven't made a dozen complaints about an article's methods before considering its ramifications. Even Einstein - despite the evidence to the contrary, he could not accept some of the quantum-mechanical conclusions that his work helped bring about.
The author is not claiming to be a subject matter expert. The fact that they are a pediatrician is irrelevant. Their argument is well sourced, and "even" a pediatrician is able to read and understand papers in adjacent medical fields.
Dr Carroll is also known for the Healthcare Triage YouTube channel, which has numerous video explainers on topics like how to critically evaluate the strength of studies, the dangers of cherry-picking data, etc.
If it matters, my back pain largely went away when I switched to working while standing for three or four hours a day.
 E.g., http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=3740
In fact, there was no difference in BMI reported between the standard condition and the intervention designed to decrease sitting time.
I don't know this literature much, but a separate analysis of the same study may show improved cardiometabolic risk profiles in workers who are encouraged to stand more often.
> Life years (LY) gained is a measure in health economics. It expresses the additional number of years of life that a person lives as a result of receiving a treatment.
And a 1% increase in LY after a 12 month intervention isn't a silver bullet, but it's nothing to sneeze at.
I still use the standing desk every now and then, but after seeing some recommendations I ended up getting a Bungee chair from The Container Store and it's really solved all of the issues that drove me to a standing desk in the first place with a reasonable price point.
I'm trying to start a habit of raising the desk before leaving for lunch, and before leaving at the end of the day.
I bought the Ikea sit-stand desk for home, since I find I waste less time at the computer if I don't sit in front of it.
We shouldn’t be so used to headlines not matching up with article content, but then again, it’s 2018.
He even provides an alternate hypothesis, that 'sitting' is a marker of poor health decisions not the cause of it.
I'm not sure what evidence you are looking for?
I've never actually seen a standing desk advertised, or even recommended, as a tool for improving cardiovascular health. So I don't see how they can be "rated" as such.
I use a standing desk sometimes because it breaks up the monotony of sitting, and because sometimes I want to stretch my legs. It does well in that regard, and that's what I see them being advertised for.
"Why you shouldn't work remotely". "Why you shouldn't drink coffee". "Why you should drink coffee". "Vaping is better than cigarettes". "Vaping worse than cigarettes".
It's a never ending assembly line of garbage because they need to push out garbage every day.
"Publish or perish" has ruined academia, much of science and the media.
Also, anything can be "overrated". It is a subjective term. The article doesn't tell us anything of any value. What did we learn? Someone thinks standing desks are overrated. Okay. Who cares? Is that worthy of an article in the nytimes?