Orthodox folks just say the bread and wine change when consecrated without further explaining the point. For them, you either accept what Christ Himself said or you have no faith in Christ. For Orthodox folks, someone saying they have faith in Christ while denying what Christ Himself said is foolishness at best and a willful denial that Christ as God at worst.
The Catholic Church elaborated what changes with consecration using the difference between substance and accident, terminology commonly used in philosophy, theology, and science discussions during the Middle Ages and well understood. Basically, it's a way to describe the nature of something independent of the physical properties it has.
The nature of something can change without there being any perceptible change to the physical attributes it has which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and always has taught. The Catholic Church has never taught that the accidents of the consecrated bread and wine change, but they have always taught that the substance changes into the body and blood of Christ exactly as Christ Himself said it does.
Neither approach to undersanding what Christ says takes place matters to Protestant folks. That's because in reality as opposed to their espoused doctrine, the overwhelming majority of Protestant folks place their faith in Self first and science when it serves their purposes, not in Jesus Christ.
They pretend to accept that Christ is God incarnate but then refuse to accept what Christ Himself said. They even routinely insist that if Christ meant exactly what He said then science could prove that the bread and wine are changed.
So much for "Faith Alone" as taught by those who so obviously have none.
The argument about the Real Presence is primarily just a way of denying the need for a sacrificial priesthood exactly the same way Korah denied the need for such a priesthood. The Lutheran (as well as a very few other small segments of various groups) approach is to not deny what Christ Himself said, but to claim that it is individual faith that consecrates the bread and wine, not consecreation by the priest in spite of Christ's actions at the Last Supper. That is, they deny what Christ did but not what Christ said.
The majority of Protestantism doesn't stop there, they deny both what Christ said and what Christ did at the Last Supper. They simply ignore the fact that what Jesus Christ, God incarnate, both said and did at the Last Supper were forshadowed in the Old Testament.
The vast majority of Protestant folks ignore it all, in spite of their claim to base what they believe on Scripture Alone they throw out anything in Scripture that complicates their embrace of the heresy of Korah. They ignore the Old Testament being fulfilled and claim the Last Supper is essentially meaningless because Christ and the Apostles were just having a snack. A grape Popsicle and handful of Cheerios for all intents and purposes.
So much for "Scripture Alone" as taught by those who so obviously ignore Scripture.
Instead of deceiving readers why don't catholic blood apologists TRY to show in the Old Testament where drinking the blood of the atonement lamb or the Passover lamb is taught? catholics can't because just the opposite is taught int hese prefigurings, but catholics will continue to float the lies to defend the sacrilege instead of practicing the sacred.