The wing loading increases with a forward shift of the CG because the tail down-force required to balance the more forward CG increases. The wing has to support the normal component of aircraft weight plus the added load due to the tail down-force.

The above is not by any means a complete description of stability or pitch control, but taken by itself, it is true and simple, assuming that the tail-lift was zero or negative before the CG shift. If you wanted to QUANTIFY the amount of tail down-force, or reduce it to zero for a certain flight condition, MATH would be required. Sometimes reality is more complex than we want it to be, and meaningful aircraft design, not just copying other stuff that works, with minor personalization, and using the TLAR principle, requires MATH. You don't see me quoting a lot of formulas here, but I grow weary of your continual campaign of implied disdain against "formulas". I respectfully and politely ask you to drop it. This is a forum on AERODYNAMICS, which is most meaningfully and economically modeled using a whole lot of math. So why the implied discouragement against those who would seek a more detailed understanding?

By the way, if we started out with a positive lifting tail, and moved the CG forward, the overall efficiency would usually INCREASE very slightly, especially at low speeds (induced drag decreases), even though the wing loading is increasing slightly, primarily because horizontal tails almost always have a lower aspect ratio than the wing, and are therefore less efficient at lift generation than wings, and create more induced drag carrying their share of the weight, than if the load on the tail was zero and the wing were carrying the whole load. This paragraph neglects stability requirements.

There is another forum on basic aerodynamics for newbies. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate forum for a campaign against complexity. If something is simplified to the point that it becomes grossly inaccurate, what use is it?

<edit> spelling