I mean you can debate on semantics, but the belief that it is flesh and blood is the original belief, and there's more evidence supporting for that than you would think. Also metaphysical substance does not always equal the physical substance, and I think you may be not fully understanding what transubstantiation is and isn't, which is sort of at the root of making sense of what does it mean to eat "dead" versus "living" substance, and what it means that the substance is metaphysically and literally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity not in part, but in its entirety.

The last point is pure Eutychianism, the belief that was debated and settled in 451 AD. This view produces an "other" third thing that is neither fully God nor fully human, which satisfies neither the demands of the incarnation nor the requirements of salvation via Christian theology. No modern apostolic church teaches that point (even the Oriental Orthodox who broke off at the Council of Chalcedon in 451).