Is the salt obtained from meat (as the primary diet) nutritionally sufficient?

Question

This post is derived from that one, where someone says

if you meant salt as a nutrient such as carbs, protein and all, there is salt in the stuff one eats already.

The background is "Naked and Afraid", a Discovery Channel survival show, where a group of people survive for 21 or 40 days without any cloth or food.

They are not next to a shore. They are in amazon jungle or Solani River Basin in Africa.

The footage shows that the candidates got food by hunting but never got additional salt.

They are hunting in Africa. Don't they need additional salt? Is the amount of salt they got from animals like impala sufficient?

Answer 1

Hunter-gatherers rarely if ever added salt to their foods, and studies of salt-free Yanomamo Indians have shown these indigenous people to maintain low blood pressures that do not increase with aging (Oliver et al, 1975).

--The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2002) 56, Suppl 1, S42–S52 (PDF link)

(The Yanomamo Indians were/are hunter-gatherers, but that doesn't necessarily mean their diet was mainly meat - plants and fruits are important components. However, meat is likely to be higher in salt than plants, so this just supports the general principle.)