I think you mean inseam to total height. Inseam to torso of 45% is pretty damned stumpy.

An inseam to height ratio of 48.6 puts you on the lanky side, at least from the hips down. To get the total picture right, you need to look at your arm length, too. In general, long arms indicate a need for a lower, longer reach to the handlebar than torso length alone would indicate. On the other hand, if the arms are more in proportion with the torso (short, that is), a higher, shorter reach is needed.

I'm a long legs, long arms sort of guy, and I wasn't getting any traction listening to the advice of clubmates who were of similar height. Plugging my numbers into the Fit Kit tables was a disaster, and I even temporarily stumped the guy who created those tables. He looked a the bike and scratched his head, until he saw me sit on it, and it was pretty darned right. I'd gotten there by modeling my fit after a well-known pro of similar height and proportions.

There are generally two sizes for riders like us, the total height size and the leg length size. Sometimes getting it right involves splitting the difference and sometimes it means just choosing the smaller one and working it. F'rinstance, a 56 in a Trek is just too small for me, but it works fine for a Scott Addict or CR1, a Specialized Tarmac, or a Cannondale. I'm riding a 58 Trek these days, with a 12 cm stem slammed, and my back angle is still not especially low. Those long arms.

Getting tuned to a position requires some time too. You're likely to feel slower, initially, with the recommendations of a fitter. This is about getting new muscle groups working together.