Additional force on the wing due to tail force isn't specified to pilots because it varies so much: For a given airplane, it depends on airspeed, load factor, CG position and gross weight. Simple wing area divided by weight is constant. It's a design consideration in a quantitative sense, and a general performance consideration for pilots (aft CG means slightly better performance).

Induced drag is increased with an increase in tail down-force (or up-force). Up-force on the tail usually increases overall induced drag because the horizontal tail usually has a lower aspect ratio than the wing, therefore, generates more induced drag taking it's share of the airplane's weight, than the additional induced drag the wing would have generated carrying all the weight itself.

This is one reason canard configurations are still rare - it is possible to design an aft-tail airplane that is more effecient than some possible canard configurations, with the same payload. That little canard can't be too big because it is destabilizing. Therefore, it must operate closer to it's CL_max than the wing does at all times (to ensure it stalls before the wing), and therefore must generate relatively high induced drag, even though it's only carrying a small percentage of the airplane's weight (depending on the CG location). That, in turn is a primary reason canard surfaces have high aspect ratios - to make them generate less induced drag for the lift required of them.

The most efficient aft-tail arrangement is for the horizontal tail to only be providing stability - not lifting up or down. So a well designed aft-tail airplane will come close to that during heavy loading conditions at cruise.

I have some Mooney time too. They take a while to slow down.

Years ago, bored on a long cross-country in a C-152, I leaned forward and back in my seat to change altitude slightly. Not surprising for such a light airplane.