First, as you are likely aware, I am not a doctor, just an empowered patient doing his best to diligently research for the truth in a world of dogma. That said, here is my take based on my research so far, some of which I have posted links to in other threads.

First, the most important info here in terms of heart disease risk is Trig/HDL ratio. Yours is 1.6 which is pretty good. By all accounts over 4 is deadly dangerous and under 2 is preferred. However, there is good evidence that optimal is 1.0 or less. Here is a link to one study showing this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/

The second most important for HD is HDL. This is where you have to be careful. Most labs use a "reference range" which is really just a bell curve showing where most of the people they test fall. This does not mean if you fall in the reference range that you are healthy because those who are sick are more likely to be tested. The reference range here often goes as low as 40 and I have even seen one that shows 35 as the bottom. In reality, 50+ is good and 60+ seems to be optimal. Boston Heart Diagnostics uses the >50 for optimal and 40-50 as borderline. Although this study is on people over 80 yo, it does show the importance of HDL over LDL numbers in regard to health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24906678

Although LDLp and sdLDL are both now shown to be more important than LDLc (standard measurement in most cholesterol panels), I have had no luck finding what these numbers should be. I believe it was Dr. Nally who said some were throwing around 1600 for the LDLp number, but he followed that with there is no research to really back that up.

Research does show all cause mortality is lowest with total cholesterol between 190 and 310. Cognition problems, aggression and suicide are all much more common with total below 150. These are all correlation studies and not causation, so take them for what they are worth which is to formulate hypotheses to test.

The total you want is higher as you get older as demonstrated in this studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674557/

One number you do not have which is hugely important is hsCRP. This is an inflammation marker which is shown to be critical in determining risk. The Reynolds Risk Score (http://www.reynoldsriskscore.org/default.aspx) has been shown to be more accurate by 30-50% over the traditional Framingham score in determining risk.

The JUPITER trial which was touted by statin makers as showing how statins save lives was only testing those with an hsCRP score over 2.0 which is considered high risk. The average participant had a score of over 4.5. The reduction in inflammation correlated to reduced disease more closely than did the lowering of the cholesterol. For that reason, I would be far more prone to find ways of reducing inflammation without all the side effects associated with a statin. As for hsCRP score, <1.0 is optimal, 1-2 is borderline, over 2 is high risk.